State-of-play

on CO2 geological
storage in 32 European
countries — an update
October 2021
CO2GeoNet
State-of-play on CO2 geological storage in
32 European countries — an update

October 2021

Report citation: CO2GeoNet (2021): State-of-play on CO2 geological storage in 32 European

countries — an update, CO2GeoNet Report, 325 p.; DOI: 10.25928/co2geonet_eu32-o21u

To explore the full functionalities please refer to the digital version of this document.
This report was prepared by the CO2GeoNet Association under the coordination of the drafting
team consisting of Heike Rütters (BGR), Vít Hladík (CGS), Aleksandra Koteras (GIG), Cornelia
Schmidt-Hattenberger (GFZ), Jan Tveranger (NORCE), Ceri Vincent (BGS) and Walter H.
Wheeler (NORCE). The report was reviewed and edited by Rowena Stead (BRGM) and Isabelle
Czernichowski-Lauriol (BRGM); Gillian Pickup (HWU) contributed to language checking of the
annex and Stefan Knopf (BGR) provided all figures except for Figure 5. The CO2GeoNet
Association would like to acknowledge particularly contributions from countries not
represented in the Association. Country-specific information was provided by:

Austria* Jakob Kulich (Geologische Bundesanstalt, GBA)

Belgium* Kris Welkenhuysen (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences -
Geological Survey of Belgium, RBINS-GSB)
Bosnia and Sanel Nuhanovič (University of Tuzla)
Herzegovina
Bulgaria Georgi Georgiev (Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”)
Croatia* Bruno Saftić (University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mining, Geology and
Petroleum Engineering, UNIZG-RGNF)
Cyprus Paul Christodoulides (Cyprus University of Technology)
Czech Republic* Vít Hladík (Czech Geological Survey, CGS)
Denmark* Karen Lyng Anthonsen, Carsten M. Nielsen (Geological Survey of
Denmark and Greenland, GEUS)
Estonia* Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of
Geology, TalTech-DG)
Finland Antti Arasto (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd),
Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of
Geology, TalTech-DG)
France* Isabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol, Rowena Stead (Bureau de Recherches
Géologiques et Minières, BRGM), Florence Delprat-Jannaud (IFP
Energies nouvelles, IFPEN)
Germany* Heike Rütters, Stefan Knopf, Franz May (Bundesanstalt für
Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, BGR); Cornelia Schmidt-
Hattenberger (Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches
GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ)
Greece* Nikolaos Koukouzas, Petros Koutsovitis, Pavlos Tyrologou,
Christos Karkalis, Eleonora Manoukian (Centre for Research and
Technology Hellas, CERTH)
Hungary* Gyorgy Falus (Mining and Geological Survey of Hungary, MBFSZ)
Iceland Sandra Snæbjörnsdóttir, Kári Helgason (Carbfix)
Continued on next page

2
Ireland Brian McConnell (Geological Survey Ireland)
Italy* Federica Donda, Barbara Merson, Sergio Persoglia, Michela Vellico,
Valentina Volpi (Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica
Sperimentale, OGS), Samuela Vercelli, Sabina Bigi (Università di Roma
“La Sapienza”, URS)
Latvia Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of
Geology, TalTech-DG)
Lithuania Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of
Geology, TalTech-DG)
The Netherlands* Suzanne Hurter (TNO – Netherlands Organisation for Applied
Science)
Norway* Jan Tveranger, Walter H. Wheeler (NORCE Norwegian Research
Centre AS)
Poland* Aleksandra Koteras (Central Mining Institute, GIG)
Portugal* Júlio Carneiro, Pedro Miguel Martins Pereira (Universidade
de Évora, ICT)
Romania* Constantin Sava (Institutul National De Cercetare-Dezvoltare
Pentru Geologie Si Geoecologie Marina, GeoEcoMar)
Slovak Republic Michal Jankulár (State Geological Institute of Dionyz Stur)
Slovenia* Marjeta Car (Geoinzeniring, druzba za geoloski inzeniring d.o.o.,
GEO-INZ)
Spain* Paula Fernández-Canteli Álvarez (Instituto Geológico y Minero de
España, IGME)
Sweden Gry Møl Mortensen, Daniel Sopher, Anna Åberg, Jesper Blomberg
(Geological Survey of Sweden); Jan Kjærstad, Filip Johnsson
(Chalmers University of Technology)
Switzerland Nicole Lupi (Swiss Federal Office of Energy)
Turkey* Çağlar Sınayuç (Middle East Technical University - Petroleum
Research Centre, METU-PAL)
Ukraine Oleksandr Ponomarenko (Division of Earth Sciences of the National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine), Yuliia Demchuk (Public
Organisation “Ukrainian Association of Geologists”)
United Kingdom* Ceri J. Vincent (British Geological Survey, BGS), Gillian E. Pickup (The
Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering at Heriot Watt University, HWU)

*: Country represented in the CO2GeoNet Association and covered by Member(s).

3
Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 6

List of Tables................................................................................................................................... 7
Terms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 8
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 2 European and national policies and climate-protection strategies .................... 22
2.1 European policies and climate-protection strategies .......................................... 22
2.2 National policies and climate-protection strategies ............................................ 23
Chapter 3 National and international legislation and regulations with respect to CO2
geological storage .................................................................................................. 27
3.1 National legislation and regulations ..................................................................... 27
3.2 International legislation and regulations .............................................................. 32
Chapter 4 Assessment of storage options, potential and capacity in Europe .................... 35
Chapter 5 Large-scale and demonstration CCS projects; pilot and test sites for CO2
capture, transport and storage .............................................................................. 40
5.1 Full-chain CCS projects and clusters .................................................................... 40
5.2 CO2 capture projects .............................................................................................. 46
5.3 CO2 transport projects............................................................................................ 49
5.4 CO2 storage projects .............................................................................................. 50
5.5 CO2-EOR ................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 6 CO2 storage research activities on a national, regional and European level ...... 52
6.1 CO2 storage research funded through FP7 and H2020 ....................................... 53
6.2 Other multinational/regional CO2 storage research projects .............................. 57
6.3 National research related to CCS .......................................................................... 62
6.4 Global collaboration ............................................................................................... 66
Chapter 7 National actors driving CCS forward, public awareness and engagement ........ 67
Chapter 8 Summary and conclusions .................................................................................... 71
References ................................................................................................................................. 73

4
ANNEX Country-specific information (as of 30th June 2021) on Austria, Belgium,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom ..................................................... 92

The information contained in this report represents the status as of 30th June 2021, apart from
a few exceptions where more recent developments have been included, particularly on a
European level.

5
List of Figures

Figure 1: European countries covered in this report. .............................................................. 18

Figure 2: Countries with an indication of the role of CCS in national decarbonisation

policies including national integrated national energy and climate plans for
the period from 2021 to 2030 and/or long-term GHG emission-reduction
strategies (EU Member States) and other national long-term GHG emission-
reduction strategies (EU non-members)................................................................... 25

Figure 3: CO2 storage permissibility with respect to national legislation in European

countries as of 2012 (cf. Rütters et al. 2013). .......................................................... 29

Figure 4: CO2 storage permissibility with respect to national legislation in European

countries as of 2021. ................................................................................................. 30

Figure 5: Overview map of the CO2StoP database on the EGDI portal of

EuroGeoSurveys. ....................................................................................................... 37

Figure 6: Status of CO2 storage potential assessment in European countries. .................... 39

Figure 7: Current situation in Europe (as of 30th June 2021) regarding CO2 capture,
transport and storage projects on all scales and at all stages of planning
and development, including full-chain/cluster projects and Projects of
Common Interest (PCI). ............................................................................................ 45

Figure 8: Geographical distribution of the 152 research institutions reported to be

involved in CO2 storage-related research in Europe given as the number of
research institutions in each country involved in CO2 storage research. .............. 53

Figure 9: Public awareness and knowledge of CCS in European countries as

perceived by this report’s national contributors during 2020. ................................ 68

6
List of Tables

Table 1: Status of ratification (or respective act depending on national constitutional

requirements) of different international treaties and regulations relevant for
CO2 storage operations. .............................................................................................. 33

Table 2: Classification of CO2 capture, transport and/or storage projects according

to project size following GCCSI (2020) and Martínez et al. (2013b). ....................... 40

Table 3: List of projects addressing subsurface storage of CO2, supported through

FP7 and H2020 funding, ongoing or completed after 2012, which were not
included in the Rütters et al. 2013 report. .................................................................. 54

Table 4: Overview of CO2 storage-related research projects and participating countries

funded through the FP7 and H2020 programmes. .................................................... 56

Table 5: Storage-related projects supported by ACT. .............................................................. 57

Table 6: Overview of European, multinational and regional projects addressing CO2

storage funded/facilitated through GeoERA, RFCS, ESA, ACT and regional
networks. ....................................................................................................................... 59

Table 7: Key statistics for CCS-related research activities in European countries

based on country reports, in some cases supplemented by on-line sources. ........ 63

Table 8: Non-European involvement in European CO2 storage-related research projects. ... 66

7
Terms and Abbreviations

ACT Accelerating CCS Technologies; ACT is an international research programme to

establish CO2 capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) as a tool to combat global
warming, the research programme which was initiated with ERA NET co-funding
and national funding of European countries.

BASRECCS Regional Baltic CCS Network; network of regional CCS experts and stakeholders
(operated as an association) aiming to support the implementation of CCS in the
Baltic Sea Countries.

BECCS Bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage; as CCS but using biogenic fuel, i.e. plant
material is used for energy generation and the CO2 is captured and stored deep
underground. BECCS has the potential of achieving negative CO2 emissions.

Billion 1,000 million, 109

CCS Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage; process consisting of the separation of CO2
from industrial and energy-related sources, transportation and injection into a
geological formation [deep underground], resulting in long-term isolation from the
atmosphere (ISO 27917:2017).

CCU Carbon dioxide Capture and Utilisation; process of separating (capturing) CO2
from an industrial, manufacturing or energy-related process or from air, and using
it directly or after conversion for use as material feedstock or product. CO2 is
utilised for many sectors including horticulture, basic chemicals and synthetic
fuels.

CCUS Carbon dioxide Capture, Utilisation and Storage; a combination of CCS and CCU
where the CO2 is stored for climate-relevant timescales (IPCC 2018). In the current
report, the term CCUS refers to CCU and CCS (if no distinction necessary) and
includes enhanced hydrocarbon recovery by CO2 injection.

CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal; removing CO2 from the atmosphere for storage
(geological or otherwise) via, for example, direct air capture and storage (DACCS)
or capture of CO2 from biomass combustion and storage (BECCS), also referred
to as NET or Negative Emission Technologies.

CEM Clean Energy Ministerial; a high-level global forum of energy ministers from 28
countries and the European Commission to promote policies and programs that
advance clean energy technologies.

8
Climate
neutrality Becoming “climate neutral” means here reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
much as possible, while compensating for any remaining emissions such as from
hard to abate sectors. Compensation can be by removing carbon from the
atmosphere (e.g. by DACCS, BECCS or by natural carbon sinks), or through
offsetting measures, which typically involve supporting climate-oriented projects.

CO2-EGR Enhanced Gas Recovery; the recovery of gas additional to that produced through
primary production, achieved by fluid injection or other means, here by injection of
CO2.

CO2-EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery; the recovery of oil additional to that produced through
primary production, achieved by fluid injection or other means, here by injection of
CO2.

CO2 eq CO2 equivalent; a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various
greenhouse gases on the basis of their global-warming potential by converting
amounts of other gases to the equivalent amount of CO2 with the same global
warming potential.

CO2
stream A flow of substances resulting from CO2 capture processes, consisting
overwhelmingly of CO2. The CO2 stream typically includes impurities and may
include substances added to the stream to improve performance of CCS and/or
to enable CO2 detection (ISO 27917:2017).

CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum; a ministerial-level international climate

change initiative that is focused on the development of improved, cost-effective
technologies for carbon capture and storage (CCS).

DAC Direct Air Capture; CO2 is captured directly from the atmosphere with a
technology/engineering solution.

DACCS Direct Air Capture with CO2 storage; DACCS has the potential of achieving negative
CO2 emissions.

EC European Commission.

ECCSEL European Research Infrastructure for CO2 Capture, Utilisation, Transport and
Storage (CCUS); a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) which is
a full legal entity under EU law; a distributed, integrated research infrastructure,
encompassing over 80 scientific facilities across Europe.

9
EERA European Energy Research Alliance; energy research community in Europe;
Membership-based, non-profit association that brings together 250 universities
and public research centres from 30 countries.

ENeRG European Network for Research in Geo-Energy; ENeRG was created in 1992 by
European organisations involved in research and technology development
focused on fossil energy sources, especially oil and gas.

EU European Union.

EU ETS EU Emissions Trading System; cap and trade system for greenhouse gases
including CO2 emissions from electricity and heat generation, energy-intensive
industry and commercial aviation emissions, set up in 2005, that operates in EU
Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and UK.

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme; European Commission funding programme.

Geological
storage of
CO2 CO2 is trapped in geological formations as a free gas/dense-phase fluid/mineral
form.

GCCSI Global CCS Institute; international think tank that aims to accelerate the
deployment of carbon capture and storage. Membership includes governments,
global corporations, private companies, research bodies and non-governmental
organisations.

GeoERA “Establishing the European Geological Surveys Research Area to deliver a

Geological Service for Europe”; H2020 ERA-NET Co-fund Action. This means that
it is not a single research project but rather a research programme that is
established and run by a group of 33 national and 15 regional geological survey
organisations from Europe.

GHG Greenhouse gas.

Gt 109 t, 106 kt, 1000 Mt

H2020 Horizon 2020; European Commission Funding programme.

IEA International Energy Agency; an autonomous inter-governmental organisation

within the OECD framework that works with governments and industry to shape a
secure and sustainable energy future for all. IEA provides authoritative analysis,
data, policy recommendations, and real-world solutions to help countries provide
secure and sustainable energy.

10
IEAGHG IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme; IEA’s Technology Collaboration
Programme formed in 1991 aiming to assess the role that technologies can play
in reducing GHG emissions from both the power system and from industrial
processes. Currently the Programme is supported by its 37 members, comprising
18 Contracting Parties and 19 multinational Sponsors. Funding for the
Programme is provided by the members.

IMO International Maritime Organisation; IMO is the United Nations’ specialised agency
responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine
and atmospheric pollution by ships.

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the United Nations body for
assessing the science related to climate change.

kt 1000 t, 10-3 Mt

LT-LEDS Long-Term Low GHG Emission Development Strategies to the mid-century (LT-
LEDS or LTS) are invited by the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement and set out
longer-term plans than the NDCs.

MI Mission Innovation; intergovernmental platform that brings together

governments, public authorities, corporates, investors and academia; global
initiative to catalyse action and investment in research, development and
demonstration to make clean energy affordable, attractive and accessible to all
this decade. MI aims to accelerate progress towards the Paris Agreement goals
and pathways to net zero.

Mineral
Storage Reacting minerals with CO2 in order to store CO2 as minerals such as carbonates
(ex-situ or in-situ).

Mt 106 t, 1000 kt, 10-3 Gt

NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions (submitted to the UNFCCC).

NECP National Energy and Climate Plan (submitted to European Commission).

NSBTF North Sea Basin Task Force; Task Force that aims to develop common principles
for managing and regulating the transport, injection and permanent storage of CO2
in the North Sea sub-seabed. Composed of public and private bodies from Norway,
the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Flanders.

Oxyfuel
Combustion A CO2 capture process based on burning a fuel using pure oxygen, or a mixture
of oxygen and recirculated flue gas instead of air.

11
PCC Post-combustion capture: capturing CO2 after the CO2-generating process,
typically using an amine based scrubbing process.

Pre-
Combustion
Capture Separating CO2 from the raw fuel before combustion by means of a gasification
process.

PCI Projects of Common Interest; key cross-border infrastructure projects that link the
energy systems of EU countries – see 2020 list of selected projects.

RFCS Research Fund for Coal and Steel; funding programme of the European
Commission.

SET-Plan Strategic Energy Technology Plan; European initiative launched in 2007 by EC to

accelerate the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies, through
cooperation amongst EU countries, companies, research institutions, and the EU
itself.

UNFCCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

ZEP Zero Emission Platform; a European Technology and Innovation Platform (ETIP)
under the European Commission’s Strategic Energy Technologies Plan (SET-Plan)
and technical adviser to the EU on the deployment of CCS and CCU.

12
Executive summary
The role of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) within the portfolio of available greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission-reduction options is currently under discussion in many European countries.
Several full-chain CCS projects are evolving, particularly around EU-supported Projects of
Common Interest for large-scale, cross-border CO2 transport infrastructures in the North Sea
area. Promising developments are also evident in other European regions. These recent
developments motivated the CO2GeoNet Association to prepare an update on the state-of-
play on geological storage of CO2 in Europe. This update builds on the 2013 report “State of
play on CO2 geological storage in 28 European countries” (Rütters et al. 2013) that was
published under the “Pan-European Coordination Action on CO2 Geological Storage” (FP7 CGS
Europe project). For the current report, reflecting the state-of-play as of 30th June 2021,
contributions using a questionnaire were collected from 32 European countries – 25 EU
Member States (excluding Malta and Luxemburg) as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland,
Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, UK and Ukraine. In addition to the countries covered in the 2013
report, information is now included on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Iceland, Switzerland,
and Ukraine; no information was obtained on Serbia for this report. The completed
questionnaires are provided in the report annex. Contributors were asked to provide
information on the following topics:

1) national policies and climate-protection strategies;

2) national legislation and regulations;
3) national storage options, potential and capacity;
4) large-scale and demonstration CCS projects, pilot and test sites for CO2 capture,
transport and storage;
5) research activities with respect to CO2 storage;
6) national actors driving CCS forward, public awareness and engagement.

The main findings from the national contributions in the context of the European CCS
landscape are as follows:

- National policies and climate-protection strategies: Since 2013, many important

policy developments at international and EU levels have been made, and many
European countries adopted new policies and measures to address the 2030 and 2050
climate objectives. To date, all 27 EU Member States submitted their final integrated
National Energy and Climate Plans (NECP) for the period from 2021 to 2030. The
national long-term strategies to meet the Paris Agreement commitments and the
Energy Union objectives with a perspective covering at least 30 years have been
provided by 20 EU Member States1. In most Member States’ NECPs, CCS is mentioned
as one of several options under consideration for decarbonising industry and/or power

1
Information provided by the EC website as of September 2021.

13
 generation or as a negative emission technology (when combined with bioenergy
generation or direct air capture). Planned activities in the individual Member States
relating to CCS differ significantly, ranging from support for research activities,
national capacity assessments and feasibility studies to an implementation of specific
large-scale CCS projects. Since the first state-of-play assessment prepared in 2012,
focus has shifted in most European countries from CO2 capture on fossil-fired power
stations to capture on other emitters (e.g. cement, steel and chemical industry, waste
incineration, geothermal plants and hydrogen production). Some countries favour CO2
capture and use (CCU) over CCS.

- National legislation and regulations: The EU Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological

storage of CO2 (“EU CCS Directive”) has been transposed into national legislation in all
EU Member States, Norway and the UK. In Iceland, the Government has adopted the
transposition, including the necessary adaptations to the conditions and requirements
for CO2 mineral storage in basalt formations. As of June 2021, the geological storage
of CO2 is permitted in 19 of the 32 countries studied, though some countries exclude
specific regions or impose limitations of the amount of CO2 that could be injected
annually. In the other 13 countries studied, CO2 storage is de facto prohibited (9
countries) or neither allowed nor prohibited since it is not covered by specific laws (4
countries). A comparison between the present-day situation and the situation in 2012
shows no clear trend: for example, while in Sweden and the Czech Republic a
previously implemented ban of CO2 geological storage was lifted, CO2 storage has
recently been forbidden in Lithuania.
Across Europe there is very limited experience with licencing procedures for CO2
storage. Only Norway has practical experience with operational industrial-scale CO2
storage sites (Sleipner, Snøhvit) that were regulated under the Norwegian Acts relevant
for emissions from petroleum activities2. Recently, storage licences according to the
provisions of the EU CCS Directive have been awarded for the Sleipner (in 2017) and
Snøhvit (in 2018) sites as well as for prospective new storage sites in Norway, the
Netherlands and the UK. Several storage licences and permits based on different
national laws and regulations (e.g. mining or geothermal) were granted to smaller-
scale and pilot projects in France, Germany, Iceland and Spain. As few projects have
moved forward to exploration and characterisation to date, the experience with
awarding exploration permits and licences for CO2 storage sites is also limited.

2
Emissions from Norwegian petroleum activities are regulated through several acts, including the
Petroleum Act, the CO2 Tax Act on Petroleum Activities, the Sales Tax Act, the Greenhouse Gas
Emission Trading Act and the Pollution Control Act.

14
- National storage options, potential and capacity: The level of knowledge, the quality
of datasets and the format of presentation differ significantly from country to country.
Detailed and comprehensive national storage atlases and databases are available in
Norway, the UK, Spain and the Nordic countries (Nordic CO2 Storage Atlas), less
detailed or partial assessments have been performed in many other countries, while in
some countries, particularly in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, only basic
assessments have been carried out. Cyprus has not yet performed any assessment of
CO2 storage potential. The most up-to-date pan-European overview of national storage
capacities is provided by the CO2StoP database, although a significant part of the
underlying data is now 10 or more years old since it was collected during the FP6 EU
GeoCapacity project (2006–2008). Although these figures do not reflect the recent
changes and updates performed at national and regional levels that have been
reported by 25 countries, they clearly indicate that Europe has sufficient geological
storage capacity to be able to deploy CCS at scale. The prevailing storage options
considered in Europe are saline aquifers (25 countries) and depleted / depleting
hydrocarbon fields (22 countries). Offshore is the preferred location of storage sites
in most countries with a coastline. Five countries also report storage capacity in coal
seams, but this option has not been investigated or developed over the last few years.
Iceland has been the pioneer and promoter of in-situ mineral storage of CO2 in mafic
and ultramafic rocks, especially basalts. Estonia and Finland report zero storage
capacity based on their unfavourable geology.

- Large-scale and demonstration CCS projects; pilot and test sites for CO2 capture,
transport and storage: In Europe, two large-scale CO2 storage sites are currently in
operation, namely Sleipner since 1996 and Snøhvit since 2008, both in the Norwegian
Sector of the North Sea. On a pilot scale, the Icelandic Carbfix pilot project has
developed CO2 geological storage in basaltic rocks by rapid mineralisation (“mineral
storage”) and has been in operation since 2014. This technology is now being used by
the Carbfix Company on a larger scale capturing and storing CO2 from a geothermal
power plant as well as directly from the atmosphere. No other pilot injection sites are
currently in operation. The pilot injection projects at Ketzin (saline aquifer, Germany),
Lacq (depleted gas field, France) and K12-B (depleted gas field, The Netherlands)
finished as planned. The injection pilot project at Hontomín, Spain, was put on hold in
2018 due to political and administrative reasons.
Reasonable development has been observed since the publication of the first State of
Play report in terms of preparation for Projects of Common Interest (PCI) and full-chain
or CCS cluster projects, often being interlinked with PCI as nuclei. Five PCI for cross-
border CO2 transport network development that are establishing transport
connections towards evolving offshore storage sites have qualified for EU financial
support: (1) CO2-Sapling project (UK); (2) CO2TransPorts (NL, BE); (3) Northern Lights
project (NO); (4) Athos project (NL); (5) Ervia Cork project (IE). New proposals for PCIs

15
 are also under development.
Commercial-scale CO2-driven enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) is ongoing in Hungary,
Turkey and Croatia. CO2-EOR is also considered an option in Austria, the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania which might help to kick-start broader
CCUS activities, whereas Denmark, for example, plans to prohibit CO2-EOR activities in
line with phasing out oil and gas production by 2050.
In several European countries, test facilities are available for developing and
optimising CO2 capture technologies at different scales. Over the last few years, focus
has shifted from capturing flue gases from fossil-fuelled power plants to pilots for
capture on industrial facilities (in particular cement plants and steel mills) addressing,
amongst other issues, process integration. In October 2020, the world's largest CO2
transport test facility opened at the Equinor premises in Porsgrunn, Norway.

- Research activities with respect to CO2 storage: 31 out of 32 countries that responded
to the questionnaire reported having at least one research institution carrying out CO2
storage-related research; some countries reported more than fifteen institutions
actively engaged. Fourteen of these countries reported hosting large-scale CCS
research infrastructure, ranging from test sites to laboratory facilities. Over the past
few years there has been a significant rise in the development of new testbeds, for
example, the UK GeoEnergy Test Bed (GTB) and the Norwegian Svelvik CO2 FieldLab,
the establishment of a network of European CCS research facilities (ECCSEL), and the
strengthening of cooperation in the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) that
build upon and complement existing research infrastructures and test centres.
Nearly all assessed European countries are or have been involved in one or more CO2
storage-related research projects funded through Horizon 2020, FP7, RFCS and
regional programmes since 2012. The bulk of these projects are coordinated by
countries of western Europe and Scandinavia and indicate particularly strong
collaborative links between some countries such as Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the UK. A few non-European countries are active
in EU-funded research projects on CO2 storage including Canada, China, the USA,
Japan, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates.
On the national level, it is difficult to compare efforts beyond a qualitative assessment
of research project numbers and topics because budget figures for projects are not
readily available. A few countries have national research programmes addressing or
dedicated to CCS or to specific parts of the CCS process chain. In all, 18 countries
reported having conducted or being in the process of carrying out one or more
nationally funded projects since 2012, ranging from development of test sites to PhD
support. The topical focus of recent CO2 storage-related national research projects in
Europe appears to be on storage capacity assessment (16 out of 18 countries) and
modelling of subsurface storage processes (14 countries), with less attention given to
well technologies, social acceptance, and complex management (addressed by 8, 8

16
 and 9 countries, respectively). In some countries, research activities have focused on
CO2 capture and utilisation rather than on geological storage.

- National actors driving CCS forward, public awareness and engagement: In many of
the European countries studied, overall awareness of and knowledge about CCS
technology is still low to very low and CCS is often perceived as a “risky technology”
due to its unfamiliarity. Striking exceptions are Iceland and Norway where high and
very high awareness levels, respectively, and neutral to positive attitudes towards CCS
were reported. In areas where storage pilot and demonstration projects were planned
or implemented, early, open and transparent public awareness and engagement
campaigns resulted locally in a mostly favourable public opinion towards the
application of CO2 storage in these areas (e.g. in Hontomín/Spain, Ketzin/Germany,
Cork/Ireland).
In several countries, media and political interest in CCS technology has (slightly to
moderately) increased recently, in particular due to the negotiations on national CO2
emission-reduction targets and measures to achieve these. In some countries, the
perception of CCS technology is reported to be more positive for CO2 capture on
industrial facilities, geothermal plants or waste incinerators than for capture on (fossil-
fired) power plants. Also, capture on bioenergy plants or direct CO2 capture from the
air, with the potential of achieving “negative” CO2 emissions, appears to increase public
acceptance of the overall process chain including geological storage.

In conclusion, the information compiled in this report reveals clear progress in Europe since
2012 in bringing CCS back onto national agendas to help to meet climate targets. This
includes a move from research to implementation, developing CCS networks with hubs and
clusters, the emergence of companies and sites offering a “CO2 transport and storage service”
and PCI creating nuclei/stimuli to advance projects. Updates of national storage capacity
assessments have been reported by the majority of countries that responded to the
questionnaire, underlining the necessity for preparation of a consolidated and up-to-date
European CO2 storage atlas to encompass these recent data as well as to collect new data.
The wide range of activity and knowledge levels across Europe underpins the continued need
for pan-European knowledge exchange, technology transfer and cooperation on all aspects of
CCS – legislation and regulation, research and development, large-scale infrastructure and
project planning and advancement – to rapidly deploy CO2 capture, transport and storage at
the scale required for significant CO2 emission reduction in Europe.

17
Chapter 1: Introduction
This CO2GeoNet report summarises the state-of-play of CO2 geological storage in 32 European
countries as of 30th June 2021. In a few specific cases, more recent information has been
included to reflect developments after this date, in particular on a European level. The report
highlights the current status of national policy and regulations around CO2 capture and
storage as well as advancements in geological storage assessments and practical
demonstration of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in each country and across Europe since
2012. This report was collated from responses to a questionnaire focused on CO2 storage,
completed by CO2GeoNet Members and institutions from outside the Association across
Europe (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: European countries covered in this report (blue: countries represented in the CO2GeoNet
Association, green: countries covered by institutions outside the Association; stripes:
countries represented in the Association, but contribution provided by a non-member
institution, or non-CO2GeoNet countries covered by an Association member).

18
The first “State of play on CO2 geological storage in 28 European countries” report was
published in 2013 under the Pan-European Coordination Action on CO2 Geological Storage
(FP7 CGS Europe project) and was based on responses to a questionnaire similar to the one
used for the current report to collect data from contributors.
The road to emission reduction and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change starts with
international agreements and goals. The Paris Agreement signed at the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21)
represented a key milestone in defining climate goals. The Paris Agreement was adopted by
196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris on 12th December 2015 and entered into force on 4th November
2016. By 22nd April 2016, the Paris Agreement had been signed by all countries considered in
this report and the European Union. Ratification (or approval/acceptance, depending on
national requirements) has been completed by all of the countries considered here. The
overarching goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2°C,
preferably to 1.5°C, compared with pre-industrial levels. This agreement was informed by the
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) that sets out scenarios for climate change impacts and
mitigation. The Paris Agreement requires each country to outline and communicate their
planned post-2020 actions to meet the agreed climate targets, known as their Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs). NDCs are recorded by the UNFCCC.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) assessed pathways to achieve global climate targets
in the Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) report series, which includes the 2 Degrees
Scenario (2DS) and more recently the Sustainable Development Scenario, and in the recent
Net Zero by 2050 report. The IPCC Assessment reports and IEA reports all emphasise the
requirement for national supporting policies and global collaboration in order to meet the Paris
Agreement climate goals, and the urgent requirement to massively scale up efforts to curb
emissions. The IEA reports show the key role for CCS in a sustainable future, alongside further
energy efficiency improvements, an increased use of renewable energy and other low carbon
technologies. The ETP scenarios clearly indicate that the longer we wait to act, the more
negative emissions through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be needed to meet climate
goals.
Multiple CCS concepts are developing, with CO2 captured from different types of facilities
(energy plants – fossil-fuelled, geothermal or bioenergy (BECCS), industrial facilities –
chemical, steel, cement plants, production of “blue” hydrogen from natural gas), or directly
from the air (Direct Air Capture and Storage - DACCS). Apart from geological storage and
mineral storage, captured CO2 may be utilised for a wide range of applications (CCU) including
the production of basic chemicals and synthetic fuels, and horticulture (e.g. increase CO2
concentration in greenhouses). The injection of CO2 into depleting oil reservoirs to enhance
oil recovery (CO2-EOR) or gas recovery (CO2-EGR) are examples of CO2 utilisation and storage.
Each of these types of utilisation has a specific CO2 emission-reduction potential that mainly

19
depends on the permanence of CO2 “storage” in the final product, the scale of application and
the overall lifecycle carbon footprint of the technology.

During 2018, the European Commission (EC) set out its vision for a climate-neutral European
Union (EU) and the objective of making the EU climate neutral by 2050, which was endorsed
by the EU leaders in 2019. During 2020, as part of the European Green Deal, which aims for
Europe’s economy and society to become climate neutral by 2050, the European Commission
proposed the first European Climate Law in order to enshrine the 2050 climate-neutrality
target into law. By the end of 2019, EU Members States were required to set out their National
Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) for the period 2021–2030 and their National Long-Term
Strategies to achieve the vision of carbon neutrality by mid-century. Current NECPs target the
original 40% emission-reduction target for 2030 and will need to be updated to meet the
recently set 2030 target of 55% reduction compared to 1990 levels. The EC strategy to become
climate neutral by 2050 was submitted to the UNFCCC during 2020. As Europe is moving
towards climate neutrality, many countries are now discussing the role of CCS in Europe and
in each country.

The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) continues to accelerate the
development and deployment of low-carbon technologies through cooperation amongst EU
countries. SET Plan Action 9 is focused on developing full-chain commercial-scale CCS
projects, cross-border infrastructures, preparation of new CO2 storage sites and promoting
new pilot projects on CO2 capture, utilisation and storage. To achieve Action 9, the SET-Plan
CCS and CCU Implementation plan set out research and innovation activities, first published
in 2017 and recently updated in 2020 to reflect the raised ambition of a carbon-neutral Europe
by 2050. CCS research and development in Europe is being supported through the European
Commission’s Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe research programmes at various scales and
technology readiness levels. The first industrial projects can be supported by the EC
Innovation Fund. The development of CCS hubs and clusters in Europe is currently being
advanced with EC support for larger-scale transport infrastructure as Projects of Common
Interest (PCI).

International agreements on standardisation will help build confidence in the safe operation
of CO2 capture, transport and storage facilities. The International Standards Organisation
(ISO) produced standards for CO2 capture, transport and geological storage through ISO/TC
265 for design, construction, operation, environmental planning and management, risk
management, and related activities. CO2 geological storage is handled by two standards
already published, i.e. “Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and geological storage —
Geological storage (ISO 27914:2017)” and “Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and
geological storage — Carbon dioxide storage using enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) (ISO
27916:2019)”. Additional standards and technical reports are in preparation.

20
During 2019, significant progress was made to remove one of the barriers to larger-scale CCS
networks including offshore CO2 transport and storage: a Provisional Application of the 2009
Amendment of Article 6 of the London Protocol was allowed, which means that cross-border
transport of CO2 for the purpose of geological storage in sub-seabed geological formations is
now permissible with agreement between the Parties concerned (see also IEAGHG 2021).

The Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) report “Global status of CCS 2020” observed a yearly
increase in new facilities under development from 2018 to 2020, part of the recent resurgence
of CCS. The report indicates 65 large-scale commercial CCS facilities, of which 26 are
operating. These 26 facilities currently capture around 40 Mt CO2 per year, most of which is
used in hydrocarbon reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery, with only five projects targeting
dedicated storage in deep saline aquifers. The report also noted increased engagement in
CCS projects from the financial and environmental, societal, and governance sectors.

The above-described recent developments in national and European climate-protection

ambitions and the yet to be fully exploited potential of CCS (and CCU) for CO2 emission
reduction and net carbon removal from the atmosphere motivated the CO2GeoNet
Association to provide an update of the current situation and recent developments on the
geological storage of CO2 in Europe to inform and stimulate ongoing discussions on the
national measures to reach the envisaged emission-reduction targets towards climate
neutrality, including the role of CCS. This report addresses the following aspects:

- European and national policies and climate-protection strategies.

- National and international legislation and regulations with respect to CO2 geological
storage.
- Assessment of storage options, potential and capacity in Europe.
- Large-scale and demonstration CCS projects; pilot and test sites for CO2 capture,
transport and storage.
- CO2 storage research activities on a national, regional and European level.
- National actors driving CCS forward, public awareness and engagement.

Activities on CCU and CO2-EOR in different European countries are considered to some extent
in this report to provide a broader overview on the options, potentials and current activities of
CCUS technologies – however, the focus of this report is clearly on CCS and in particular on
the geological storage of CO2.

21
Chapter 2: European and national policies and climate-
protection strategies
2.1 European policies and climate-protection strategies
Since 2012, many important policy developments at international and EU levels have been
made, and many European countries have adopted new policies and measures to address the
2030 and 2050 climate objectives. The EU aims to be climate-neutral by 2050, i.e. to become
an economy with net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EC set out its vision for a
climate-neutral EU in November 2018, which was endorsed by the European Council in
December 2019. Becoming the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 is the overarching
objective of the European Green Deal – the EU’s main new growth strategy to transition the
EU economy to a sustainable economic model. In addition, the EU has recently re-defined its
2030 climate ambition, now aiming to cut GHG emissions by at least 55%. To bring the EU’s
climate and energy legislation in line with this updated 2030 goal, the EC proposed the Fit for
55 package in July 2021. The transition to climate neutrality concerns nearly all EU policies
and is in line with the Paris Agreement objective to keep the global temperature increase to
well below 2°C and pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5°C. To write into law the European Green
Deal’s main objective, the European Commission proposed, on 4th March 2020, the first
European Climate Law enshrining the 2050 climate-neutrality target. The included provisions
complement the existing policy framework, i.e. the 2030 climate and energy framework, and
propose a legally binding target of net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. The European Climate
Law (Regulation (EU) 2021/1119) was approved by the European Parliament on 24th June
2021 and by the European Council on 28th June 2021 and entered into force on 29th July 2021.

Practical measures to help achieve the EU climate neutrality are included in the “Clean Energy
for all Europeans Package” – a set of eight legislative Acts on the energy performance of
buildings, renewable energy, energy efficiency, governance, and electricity market design.
According to provisions included in this Package, each EU country is required to establish an
integrated 10-year National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) for 2021–2030. The NECPs
outline how EU countries are going to achieve their respective targets related to the common
EU energy and climate targets for 2030. The NECPs have now been finalised for all 27 EU
Member States. In addition, the Member States were required to submit their first national
long-term strategies (covering the period up to 2050) to the Commission by 1st January 2020.
The strategies describe how the Member States plan to achieve the GHG emissions
reductions needed to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement and the EU climate-
neutrality objectives. The long-term strategies have to be consistent with Member States’
NECPs. At the time this report was written, national long-term strategies had been submitted
by 20 out of the 27 Member States. In the countries outside the EU, other national legislations,

22
programmes and mechanisms have been implemented, which also aim to achieve climate
goals resulting, inter alia, from the Paris Agreement.

On the European level, CCS is considered an important technology to achieve the EU climate
objectives. For example, the Commission’s publication “Going climate-neutral by 2050” counts
CCS as one of seven major strategic building blocks of the strategic vision for a climate-
neutral Europe. CCS is deemed necessary “as a potential avenue to produce hydrogen, as a
mechanism for eliminating certain difficult-to-reduce emissions from industry and, combined
with sustainable biomass, to create CO2 removal technologies” (DG CLIMA 2019).

The study ´Review of Carbon Capture Utilisation and Carbon Capture and Storage in future EU
decarbonisation scenarios´ (Butnar et al. 2020), commissioned by the SET Plan
Implementation Working Group 9, reviews the role of CCS and CCU in Europe in published
decarbonisation scenarios consistent with the 1.5°C and 2°C global temperature targets. The
considered scenarios indicate that CCS is essential for Europe to reach net-zero CO2
emissions by 2050, which is consistent with the 1.5°C global target. To achieve a target of
below 2°C, most scenarios suggest a prominent role for CCS. This strongly implies that Europe
needs large-scale CCS deployment to meet future GHG emission-reduction targets. In the
1.5°C scenarios reviewed by Butnar et al. (2020), the median rate of CO2 capture by CCS is
230-430 Mt CO2/year in Europe in 2030, increasing to 930-1,200 Mt CO2/year by 2050. In the
2°C scenarios, the median rate of CO2 captured by CCS is lower with 35-100 Mt CO2/year in
Europe in 2030, increasing to 600-930 Mt CO2/year by 2050. In addition, there is a significant
role for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, for example, by energy generation from
biomass with CCS (BECCS), in the scenarios, ranging from 150-230 Mt CO2/year by 2050 in
the 2°C scenarios to 400 Mt CO2/year by 2050 in the 1.5°C scenarios (Butnar et al. 2020).

2.2 National policies and climate-protection strategies

The above-mentioned and other related strategic documents issued by the countries covered
in this report have been analysed with reference to the inclusion of CCS in national energy
and/or climate protection plans and strategies. When analysing the 27 NECPs submitted by
EU Member States to the EC, it was found that 20 mention plans and possibilities for the use
of CCS technology as a CO2 emission-reduction option. In some countries, only one part of the
CCS chain (i.e. capture) is being considered.

In the case of long-term strategies, as of September 2021, 20 out of 27 countries had reported
to the EC. CCS technology (sometimes in combination with CCU) is included in the long-term
strategies of Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary. It should be noted, however, that in the majority of cases

23
these strategies mention a possible consideration of CCS without detailed specification and
without clear implementation plans. This includes CCS being solely considered, inter alia, in
GHG emission-reduction scenarios or indicated as an option for specific industry sectors with
an assumed cost reduction and with a need for further research on implementation, or CO2
use but not storage or CO2 capture where the CO2 is exported for storage.

Overall, the foreseen activities with respect to CCS in the individual Member States differ
significantly. They range from support for research activities, national storage capacity
assessments and feasibility studies to implementation of specific large-scale CCS projects.
Since 2012, the focus of CCS application has shifted in many countries from capture at fossil-
fired power plants to capture at industrial facilities and other alternative emitters/sources, for
example, waste incineration plants or geothermal energy production.

In countries where CCS is considered an (important) element of the transition to a low or zero-
emission economy, its implementation also involves the need to cooperate with other
countries. Establishing framework programmes and/or bi- or multilateral collaborations are
declared as an aim, for example, by Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, and
Sweden. This collaboration also may include countries outside the EU. There are very visible
activities in this area included in NECPs and long-term strategies of the Nordic countries that
mention, for example, the “Nordic Energy Research” as a platform for co-operative energy
research and policy development.

The provisions of the Paris Agreement invite Parties to communicate by 2020 to the UNFCCC
Secretariat their mid-century “long-term low GHG emission development strategies
(LT-LEDS)”. At the end of September 2021, such strategies or their drafts had been prepared
and communicated by Hungary, Slovenia, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Netherlands,
Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Latvia, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Portugal, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
Czech Republic, and Germany, i.e. by 19 countries of the 32 countries covered by this report,
and by the European Union. In EU Member States, these long-term strategies are expected to
be consistent with Member States’ NECPs for the period 2021–2030 and the national long-
term strategies prepared under the “Clean Energy for all Europeans Package”.

Figure 2 shows the countries covered in this report and indicates those with policies that refer
in some way to the possibility of using CCS.

24
Figure 2: Countries with an indication of the role of CCS in national decarbonisation policies including
national integrated national energy and climate plans for the period from 2021 to 2030 and/or
long-term GHG emission-reduction strategies (EU Member States) and other national long-
term GHG emission-reduction strategies (EU non-members).

When analysing the main objectives related to the low/zero-emission goals included in all the
above-mentioned documents, differences between the targets of individual countries are
clearly visible. For instance, for the reduction of non-Emissions Trading System (ETS) GHG
emissions by 2030 compared with 2005, the highest reduction targets of 40% or more are set
in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. Emission-
reduction targets between 30 and 36% are set by Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and the
Netherlands. When it comes to the lowest reduction targets, up to 10% is indicated by Croatia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Targets for the share of renewable energy sources in
the final energy consumption in 2030 of more than 40% are reported for Austria, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain. In the case of energy security, which
refers to reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels, in some countries quantified objectives are

25
not set. 100% renewable electricity generation by 2030, 2040 and 2050 is indicated by Austria,
Sweden and Denmark, respectively.

These examples show the wide variation in goals defined in strategic documents by individual
countries that reflect their present-day characteristics of, for example, national economic
structure, energy mixes, domestic energy sources, and gross domestic product (GDP) level.

26
Chapter 3: National and international legislation and
regulations with respect to CO2 geological
storage
3.1 National legislation and regulations
The EU Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of CO2 (often called the “EU CCS
Directive”) was transposed into national legislation in all Member States considered in this
study between 2010 and 2014 (information on Malta and Luxemburg has not been included
as no partners were identified to provide updates). Norway, a member of the European
Economic Area (EEA), transposed the EU CCS Directive in 2014. In Iceland (EEA member), the
Government has adapted the transposition of the Directive to allow for the conditions and
requirements of mineral storage, i.e. to enable the subsurface storage of CO2 in basalt
formations. Turkey (EU membership candidate), Bosnia and Herzegovina (potential candidate
for EU membership), as well as Switzerland and Ukraine have no dedicated national legislation
in place for geological storage of CO2. In Turkey, there are no regulatory barriers that directly
prevent the usage of the subsurface for CO2 storage; in particular, if a field could be used
technically as a storage medium, for other energy activities and at the same time for
petroleum production, CO2 storage operations are allowed. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, only
gas storage has been regulated to date. In Switzerland, the 26 Cantons have sole sovereignty
over the subsurface and are responsible for defining the regulatory framework for geological
CO2 storage if deemed necessary.

As of June 2021, the geological storage of CO2 is currently permitted in 19 of the 32 countries
studied by provisions according to the EU CCS Directive or other national legislation and
regulations. Some countries excluded certain regions or imposed certain limitations as
follows:

Permitted:
UK, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Hungary, France, Czech Republic and
Romania.

Permitted with regional exceptions or limitations:

- Italy (excluding seismic/volcanic areas),

- Croatia (state may exclude certain areas),
- Belgium (Brussels region & North Sea area: storage geologically not possible,
Flemish and Walloon regions: permitted),
- Sweden (only offshore),

27
 - Greece and Cyprus (CO2 storage not allowed in the water column or if the storage
complex extends beyond Hellenic or Cypriot territory 3, respectively),
- Greece (in addition to the above, storage is prohibited in underground aquifers),
- Poland (permitted only for demonstration projects in specified areas; see also
below),
- Slovak Republic (exploration only allowed in defined areas, see also below) and
- Bulgaria (the size of the exploration area for each individual CO2 storage site is
limited to 5,000 km2 on land and 20,000 km2 on the continental shelf and in the
exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea; ICF International 2013).

Prohibited: The geological storage of CO2 is prohibited in 9 of the 32 countries studied:

Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Finland, Estonia, Austria and Denmark (exception: EOR
operations allowed offshore). In Germany, de facto CO2 storage has been prohibited since
2017 (see also below). In many countries where CO2 storage is prohibited, an exception from
Article 2 of the Directive is included in the national laws for activities with a total foreseen
amount of less than 100,000 t CO2 stored so that injection for research purposes, development
or testing of new products or processes is permissible. In contrast, Denmark and Slovenia
prohibit any CO2 injection in the subsurface (see also below).

Not defined: CO2 storage is currently neither permitted nor prohibited in Ukraine, Turkey,
Switzerland and Bosnia and Herzegovina as no dedicated legislation exists in these countries.

A comparison between the present-day situation and the situation in 2012 shows no clear
trend of development (Figs. 3&4). Nevertheless, the following aspects are notable:

- Five additional countries transposed the EU CCS Directive after 2012 and the collation
of the Rütters et al. 2013 report, making CO2 storage now permitted within this legal
framework in Norway, Croatia, Poland, Iceland and parts of Belgium. Note that in
Norway, the Sleipner and Snøhvit projects were first regulated under the Norwegian
Acts pertaining to Petroleum Activities and the Pollution Control Act prior to the
transposition of the EU CCS Directive and their re-licencing in 2017 and 2018,
respectively.
- CO2 storage is now also permitted in Sweden and the Czech Republic. In Sweden, CO2
storage was temporarily forbidden until 2013. According to the new laws, as of 2014
(with some amendments in the following years), larger-scale CO2 storage is now
permitted offshore in Sweden. In the Czech Republic, the time limit prohibiting CO2
storage projects exceeding 100 kt CO2 expired on 1st January 2020, so that CO2 storage
is now permitted.

3
Including each country’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

28
 - In contrast, in Lithuania, CO2 storage has been prohibited since 1st July 2020 by a new
law. Similarly, Slovenia has prohibited CO2 storage since November 2013 (also
applying to CO2 injection for research purposes).
- In Germany, the national CO2 storage law in principle permits CO2 geological storage,
but de facto CO2 storage is prohibited as the deadline for filing CO2 storage permits
under this law expired on 31st December 2016. In addition, the German Federal States
are given the right to ban CO2 storage in their territory and some states have used this
power. A first evaluation of the national storage law in 2018 did not result in any
adaptations. The next evaluation is due in 2022.

Figure 3: CO2 storage permissibility with respect to national legislation in European countries as of
2012 (cf. Rütters et al. 2013).

29
Figure 4: CO2 storage permissibility with respect to national legislation in European countries as of
2021; note that in the 2021 representation the categories “permitted with regional exceptions”
and “permitted with limitations” used in the Rütters et al. 2013 report are combined.

The specificities of the legal situation in the following countries is explained in more detail
below:

- In Slovakia, the national CO2 Storage Act generally enables CO2 storage, but at the
same time, other regulations significantly limit possible locations of CO2 storage sites
by protecting priority areas for other subsurface uses such as geothermal energy
recovery or exploitation of hydrocarbons and mineral resources as well as areas for
national parks.

30
 - In Poland, only CCS for demonstration purposes 4 is allowed. Further limitations arise
from the Implementing Acts to the Polish Geological and Mining Law stipulating that
only offshore storage is allowed, with further limitations. As a result, at present the
only available place where CO2 storage may be permissible is the Cambrian reservoir
within the exclusive economic zone of Poland.
- In Austria, the national CO2 storage law is evaluated every five years. The evaluation in
2018 did not result in any changes, i.e. CO2 storage is still prohibited in Austria.
- Denmark plans to permit large-scale offshore and onshore storage during 2022. The
EU CCS Directive is implemented in the Danish Subsurface Act, but Denmark has since
2011 had a moratorium for CO2 storage both onshore and offshore except in the case
of EOR projects in Danish hydrocarbon fields in the North Sea. This moratorium also
affected CO2 injection for research purposes (< 100 kt). Permission for an injection of
up to 100 kt CO2 (research projects) is expected to be approved during 2022 and
permission for injections of more than 100 kt CO2 (large scale) is expected to be
approved in autumn 2022.
- In Ireland, currently CO2 storage is not permitted on Irish territory, its exclusive
economic zone and its continental shelf. The national law is currently under review
with plans to permit CO2 storage.

Depending on the country-specific governmental and administrative organisation, CO2 storage

is regulated on a national/federal/state level (15 countries) or at regional level (4 countries)
by the designated authorities/agencies. For 13 countries, no information was available or the
relevant authority is not defined. In many countries where authorities are defined it is the
(national or regional) mining authorities or hydrocarbon agencies that are often sub-ordinate
to the (national or regional) ministries responsible for economy, energy or the environment. In
some countries, several ministries are each responsible for regulating specific parts of the
CCS chain. The exact structural organisation of agencies, departments and ministries is
unique in each country.

In many of the countries studied, ownership of the subsurface lies with the state or the people
collectively (e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine). In some of the countries studied, the state has the right
and/or the responsibility to define prospective areas for CO2 storage, and it can also decide to
exclude areas from any CO2 storage activity. In several other countries (e.g. in Austria,
Belgium’s Brussels and Walloon regions, Germany, Latvia), the individual landowners own the
land down to the earth’s centre. In this case, the landowner’s claim often does not include

4
“Demonstration projects” involve capture on power generation with a minimum capacity of 250 MW
or 500 kt CO2 captured and stored annually on industrial plants as defined in the European Commission
Decision 2010/670/EU of 3rd November 2010.

31
hydrocarbons and the geological structures bearing them (Austria) or “freely mineable”
resources (Germany), which are deemed as national resources/state property. Permits and
concessions for these are managed by agencies or mining authorities, as in countries where
the subsurface is owned by the state. In contrast, in Latvia, storage permits from many
landlords would be required to enable onshore CO2 storage.

There is very limited experience with licencing procedures for CO2 storage across Europe. Only
Norway has practical experience with industrial-scale CO2 storage sites in operation, and only
three countries have awarded storage licences according to the provisions of the EU CCS
Directive – Norway, the Netherlands and the UK. Several storage licences and permits based
on different laws and regulations (e.g. mining or geothermal) were granted to smaller-scale
and pilot projects in France, Germany, Iceland and Spain. Denmark reports one declined
storage licence pre-application from 2011. Since few projects have reached the site
characterisation phase, the experience with awarding exploration permits and licences is also
limited in Europe (less than 10 countries).

3.2 International legislation and regulations

Various international agreements and regulations are relevant for the implementation of CCS
projects in Europe and worldwide. The "Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972" ("London Convention" or LC) was one of the first
global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities and to prevent
pollution of the sea by dumping of wastes and other matter. It has been in force since 1975.
The “London Protocol” (LP) was agreed during 1996 prohibiting all dumping except for some
acceptable wastes (specified in the so-called “reverse list”). The Protocol entered into force
in 2006. An amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol was adopted in 2009 allowing for
the export of CO2 streams for geological storage. For the amendment to come into force, a
ratification by two thirds of the contracting parties is required. However, ratification, i.e.
approval from all signatories, had not been achieved a decade after the amendment was
adopted (cf. Tab. 1) so the amendment still is not in force. To overcome this barrier to the
implementation of CCS projects involving transboundary transport of CO2, a provisional
application of this amendment was accepted at the LC 41/LP 14 meeting of the contracting
parties in October 2019, thus, cross-border CO2 transport to offshore storage sites is now
permissible based upon agreements or arrangements between the countries concerned. In
more detail, this means that countries who wish to allow cross-border transport of CO2 for
injection and permanent storage under the seabed must currently deposit a Unilateral
Declaration of the Provisional Application of the 2009 Amendment to the London Protocol
Article 6 to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), i.e. both
the importing and exporting country must deposit the declaration. This procedure is only
possible for parties to the London Protocol.

32
Table 1: Status of ratification (or respective act depending on national constitutional requirements) of
different international treaties and regulations relevant for CO2 storage operations.

London Convention & London Protocol

OSPAR HELCOM
Country Status as of Ratification of
10th September 2021 2009 LP Amendment
Austria Non Party (x)
Belgium Protocol Party x
Bosnia and Herzegovina Non Party
Bulgaria Protocol Party (x)
Croatia Convention Party (x)
Cyprus Convention Party (x)
Czech Republic Non Party (x)
Denmark1 Protocol Party x x
Estonia Protocol Party x (x) x
Finland Protocol Party x x x
France Protocol Party x
Germany Protocol Party x x
Greece Convention Party (x)
Hungary Convention Party (x)
Iceland Protocol Party x
Ireland Protocol Party x
Italy Protocol Party (x)
Latvia Non Party (x) x
Lithuania Non Party (x) x
The Netherlands2 Protocol Party x x
Norway Protocol Party x x
Poland Convention Party (x) x
Portugal Convention Party x
Romania Non Party (x)
Slovak Republic Non Party (x)
Slovenia Protocol Party (x)
Spain Protocol Party x
Sweden Protocol Party x x x
Continued on next page

33
Table 1: (continued) Status of ratification (or respective Act depending on national constitutional
requirements) of different international treaties and regulations relevant for CO2 storage
operations.

London Convention & London Protocol

OSPAR HELCOM
Country Status as of Ratification of
10th September 2021 2009 LP Amendment
Switzerland Protocol Party x
Turkey Non Party
Ukraine Convention Party
United Kingdom Protocol Party x x
European Union n/a n/a x x
1: With territorial exclusion with respect to Greenland and Faroes
2: For the European Part of the Netherlands
x: Approval/ Party
(x): Party under European Union signature.

The OSPAR Convention (1992), its name being derived from the original 1972 Oslo ("OS") and
1974 Paris (“PAR”) Conventions, is a mechanism by which 15 governments and the EU (and
as such all its Member States; see Tab. 1) cooperate to protect the marine environment of the
North-East Atlantic. The OSPAR Convention is the result of the combination, up-dating and
extension of the Oslo Convention against dumping and the Paris Convention for the prevention
of marine pollution from land-based sources. During 2007, the OSPAR Commission adopted
amendments to the Annexes of the Convention to allow the storage of CO2 in geological
formations under the seabed (Decision 2007/2), while the storage of CO2 streams in the water
column or on the seabed was prohibited (Decision 2007/1).

Likewise, for the protection of the marine environment in the Baltic Sea area, the Convention
on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (“Helsinki Convention”)
was signed in 1974 by all Baltic Sea coastal countries. It forms the foundation of the Baltic
Marine Environment Protection Commission, an intergovernmental organisation also known
as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) (Tab. 1). The Helsinki Convention “seeks to protect
the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution […], to preserve biological diversity and to promote
the sustainable use of marine resources”. With this line, it prohibits the disposal of waste
under the Baltic Sea. As yet, no amendment has been made to the Convention to explicitly
exclude anthropogenic CO2 from the list of wastes. In addition, established regional
organisations such as HELCOM will play an important role in regional marine spatial planning
(here: for the Baltic Sea area) to potentially implement CO2 storage while ensuring protection
and sustainable use of the marine environment (cf. Langlet 2018).

34
Chapter 4: Assessment of storage options, potential and
capacity in Europe
The first joint European research on assessment of CO2 storage potential was performed
within the project “The underground disposal of carbon dioxide”, funded by the 3rd EU
Framework Programme JOULE 2 in 1993–1995. The first European numbers for possible
geological storage capacity with an order of magnitude of 800 billion tonnes of CO2 (800 Gt
CO2), mainly far offshore in the North Sea, were reported by Holloway (1996). These estimates
of geological capacities were, as it was stated, “broad-brush” numbers, but nevertheless
encouraging and thus led to further work.

The JOULE 2 study combined with the commencement of the Sleipner project in 1996, was
the inspiration for the GESTCO study (“European potential for geological storage of CO2 from
fossil fuel combustion”) that was carried out in 2000–2003. GESTCO was a 3-year EU-FP5
project covering eight countries (Norway, Denmark, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany,
France and Greece). Results were published in the project summary report (Christensen &
Holloway 2004).

Within the CASTOR project (“CO2 from Capture to Storage”, EU-FP6, 2004–2008), a small part
enabled initiation of collaborative activities around CO2 storage capacity assessment between
the GESTCO countries and some of the – at that time – new EU Member States and Candidate
Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The first CO2 storage potential data from the Czech
Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria were collected
and integrated in a database and Geographic Information System (GIS). Data were collected
on possible geological storage locations, such as aquifers, oil and gas fields and coal seams,
as well as local CO2 emission point sources. Based on the data and assumptions, a first
estimate of geological storage capacity was calculated, proving that generally 20 years’ worth
of all CO2 emissions from point sources in the studied region could be stored in geological
sites (Scholtz et al. 2006).

In 2006–2008, the above-mentioned activities were followed by EU GeoCapacity (“Assessing

European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide”), an EU-FP6 project that has been
the most comprehensive activity on mapping pan-European CO2 storage potential to date. EU
GeoCapacity covered 25 countries. Comprehensive country reports were produced,
containing assessments of geological structures suitable for CO2 geological storage, CO2
point emission sources and existing infrastructure data (oil and gas pipelines). Storage
potential was evaluated on the basis of a unified methodology; the level of detail, however,
differed from country to country, depending on the amount and quality of available data.
Archive, re-evaluated, as well as newly derived data were used. The main result is a GIS-linked,
pan-European database of CO2 storage potential. The database includes both public and
confidential data; therefore, it could not be made freely available in the public domain. Project

35
reports, publications and presentations are still available on the project website. Conservative
storage capacity estimates for Europe are provided in the final report, accounting for 96 Gt
(96,000 Mt) of CO2 in deep saline aquifers, 20 Gt (20,000 Mt) of CO2 in depleted hydrocarbon
fields and 1 Gt (1,000 Mt) of CO2 in unmineable coal beds. Considering the emissions reported
by the European Environment Agency for 2019 (587 Mt CO2 eq per year for industrial emissions;
EEA 2020) and the conservative estimate for CO2 storage in saline aquifers and hydrocarbon
fields reported by EU GeoCapacity (116 Gt), if 1/10 of the reported geological storage capacity
could be used, then two decades’ worth of industrial emissions from Europe could be stored.
It is worth noting that the EU GeoCapacity project strongly recommended collection of new
data and further work to fully assess storage capacity in Europe. In particular, it was noted
that data for saline aquifers, where the largest storage capacity is expected to lie, is extremely
sparse.

In 2012–2013, the European Commission funded a targeted project titled CO2StoP (“CO2
Storage Potential in Europe”) to establish a database of publicly available data on CO2 storage
potential in Europe. Due to the limited budget, only existing data were used. In all, 27 European
countries were covered. In most cases, EU GeoCapacity data were used with the confidential
data removed. Only a few countries provided updates, largely based on work funded at
national level. CO2StoP used an improved methodology for storage potential assessment, and
a pan-European database was produced. Project results include the database, a GIS
application (ESRI’s ArcGIS 10) and a calculation engine capable of providing probabilistic
estimates of CO2 storage capacity. A Data Analysis/Interrogation Tool is also available, able
to perform calculations of storage capacity, injection rates with stochastic analyses. The
project report does not provide any overall storage capacity figures for Europe but rather a set
of country-wide results based on calculations performed using the calculation engine with
uncertainty intervals expressed mostly by minimum, maximum and mean values. The
CO2StoP database itself was first housed by the EC Joint Research Centre in Petten, the
Netherlands, and was made broadly available to the public only in 2020. After an agreement
was reached with EuroGeoSurveys, the association of European Geological Surveys, the
database has become publicly available online on the EGDI map portal of EuroGeoSurveys
(Fig. 5). The CO2StoP database represents the most up-to-date pan-European dataset;
however, much of the data collation took place more than a decade ago and does not reflect
recent changes and updates performed on national and regional levels. Storage capacity
updates that have taken place since the publication of the first State of Play report and June
2021 have been reported by 25 countries; details are provided in Annex I to this report. The
updates range from thorough storage capacity assessments or re-assessments on country or
even transnational levels, to updates focusing on selected regions or clusters of potential
storage sites.

36
Figure 5: Overview map of the CO2StoP database on the EGDI portal of EuroGeoSurveys.

Notable examples of new developments in storage capacity assessments since 2012 are as
follows: The Nordic CO2 Storage Atlas that was produced by NORDICCS – the Nordic CCS
Competence Centre in 2011–2015 and that covers Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
National storage atlases/databases have been completed in three countries: The UK has
finalised its national storage database CO2 Stored, Norway has finished the work on the
comprehensive CO2 Storage Atlas of the Norwegian Continental Shelf, and Spain completed
its Atlas of Subsoil Structures Susceptible to CO2 Storage (AlgeCO2).

Considering these recent developments (including the Nordic Atlas), together with earlier
work, we can state that a comprehensive national CO2 storage atlas (database, catalogue) is
currently available for 8 European countries – Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Poland,
Spain, Sweden and the UK. The level of detail and information provided varies significantly
between the national databases/catalogues of these countries. For example, the Storage
Catalogue of Germany does not include a quantification of CO2 storage capacities.

In addition, significant developments of storage capacity assessment or re-assessment at a

national level have also been achieved in other countries, in particular Hungary, Ireland, Italy
and the Netherlands. Work on national storage capacity (re-)assessment is ongoing or has
just finished in Denmark and Ukraine.

37
The developments listed above offer a strong argument for the value of a new pan-European
CO2 storage atlas, as recommended in the Position Paper by ENeRG, the European Network
for Research in Geo-Energy, in 2012. The necessity to prepare a consolidated and up-to-date
European Storage Atlas has also been reflected in the EU SET Plan Action No 9 CCS and CCU
and its Implementation Plan, where the R&I Activity 4: ´Establish a European CO2 Storage
Atlas´ was included in 2017 with the intention of this work being completed by 2020.
Unfortunately, this objective has not been achieved as of today and there are no indications
that a European Storage Atlas could be available before 2025–2027, given that the estimated
working time to complete such an activity is approximately three years.

The Annex to this report contains the questionnaire responses and provides an overview of
the current status of CO2 storage potential assessment in individual European countries. It is
evident that the level of knowledge, quality of datasets and form of presentation differ from
country to country, ranging from detailed national atlases and databases (Norway, the UK,
etc.) to basic assessments or even no assessment in some countries, especially in Eastern
and South-Eastern Europe. Two countries – Estonia and Finland – report zero storage
capacity based on their unfavourable geology. The map in Figure 6 provides an overview of
the current level of CO2 storage capacity assessment in individual countries.

The prevailing types of structures considered for CO2 storage in Europe are saline aquifers (25
countries) and depleted/depleting hydrocarbon fields (22 countries). Offshore sites are the
preferred location for storage in most coastal countries, with a focus on the North Sea as a
region where the largest European storage potential has been identified so far. Five countries
report storage capacity in coal seams but this option has not been investigated or developed
recently. In many countries the focus has been on one type of structure or geographical setting
while other types or settings have not been evaluated in detail (such as aquifers in Ireland and
the Netherlands, offshore structures in France, etc.).

Iceland is the pioneer and an advocate of in-situ mineral storage of CO2 in mafic and ultramafic
rocks, especially basalts, promoted by the dissolution of CO2 in water before or during its
injection (so-called “Carbfix technology”; Snæbjörnsdóttir et al. 2020). Carbfix has recently
launched its “Mineral Storage Atlas“ that highlights suitable geological formations for mineral
storage in Europe and worldwide. Altogether the worldwide mineral storage potential has been
estimated at > 100,000 Gt CO2. This approach has not been followed by other European
countries yet, apart from Greece and Portugal, where the first steps are in progress towards
an estimation of their national CO2 storage potential for in-situ mineralisation.

38
Figure 6: Status of CO2 storage potential assessment in European countries.

39
Chapter 5: Large-scale and demonstration CCS projects;
pilot and test sites for CO2 capture, transport
and storage
This chapter gives an update on developments since 2012 regarding CO2 capture, transport
and/or storage projects as well as new activities at all project scales (Tab. 2).

Table 2: Classification of CO2 capture, transport and/or storage projects according to project size
following GCCSI (2020) and Martínez et al. (2013b).

Scale Definition
projects that enable CO2 capture/injection rates of > 400 kt CO2/year
Large-scale projects
(800 kt/year on power)
projects that have a capture/injection rate of < 400 kt/year with overall
demonstration projects
> 100 kt CO2 captured/injected
pilot projects with an overall amount of < 100 kt CO2 captured/injected (over a few years)

This report focuses on storage projects. Capture and transport projects are included to
complement the overview of projects and activities relevant for advancing CCS technology
and its implementation.

5.1 Full-chain CCS projects and clusters

The realisation of large-scale CCS projects in Europe remains challenging: between 2010 and
2017 many projects were slowed down or cancelled due to financial restrictions, low public
acceptance (of CCS in general and locally of specific projects) and lack of incentives. Recent
initiatives at national level such as the Norwegian full-chain CCS project (Longship), as well
as on EU level (e.g. the recently opened Innovation Fund) could unlock the potential of CCS in
Europe. With a view to achieving its climate and energy targets for 2020 and beyond, the EU
launched two major funding programmes in 2009 to support implementation of CCS and
Innovative Renewables: the European Energy Recovery Programme (EEPR) and the NER300
programme. As the European Court of Auditors noted, neither programme succeeded in
introducing CCS in the EU (European Court of Auditors 2018). Lupion and Herzog (2013)
analysed factors and reasons for this: The political and economic realities in Europe have
changed since the European CCS demonstration programme was set up in 2009. Cutbacks in
public funds as result of the financial and economic crises, and a lack of comprehensive
climate policies in most of the Member States were critical factors affecting the lack of

40
advancement in CCS development in Europe. In addition, the combination of tight
specifications of criteria for project assessment in the NER300 programme, the requirement
of substantial co-funding from the actors, and a larger complexity and higher costs of CCS
projects as compared to Renewable Energy Sources (RES) projects have proven fatal. Due to
the collapse of the carbon price under the EU ETS (at that period close to only EUR 5/t CO2)
and without any other legal constraint or incentive, there was no rationale for economic actors
to invest in CCS. Of the 33 proposals submitted by Member States in the NER300 second
round only one CCS proposal (White Rose from the UK) addressed CCS (EC 2013). The failure
to receive a significant number of CCS project applications under the NER300 second round
again supports the reasons from Lupion and Herzog (2013) presented above.

The new EU Innovation Fund for low-carbon technologies was launched in 2020. The
originally EUR 10 billion fund, which is financed by the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
and replaces the NER300 programme, will run until 2030. An increase of this amount to
EUR 20 billion has been proposed by the EC within the Fit for 55 Package in July 2021. The
Innovation Fund offers grants (EUR 1.5-4.5 million) for small-scale projects (< EUR 7.5 million
total capital costs) and for large-scale projects (> EUR 7.5 million total capital costs) aiming
to support the commercial demonstration of innovative low-carbon technologies, including
CCU and CCS. To date, two calls for proposals – one for small-scale and one for large-scale
projects – have been run. In the small-scale call, among the 32 project applications that have
been invited to start the grant preparation process, four include elements of CCUS
(AggregaCO2, CCGeo, Silverstone, and FirstBio2Shipping). The first call for large-scale
projects was heavily oversubscribed with 311 eligible applications, of which 70 were selected
for the 2nd stage. More than 20% of these 70 projects include at least one CCUS component
but less than half of those include CO2 storage (the majority relate to CO2 utilisation). The first
grants are expected to be awarded in early 2022. Further calls, both large-scale and small-
scale, will follow.

The possibility to apply for grants from the Innovation Fund has been an additional stimulus
for preparation of new CO2 storage projects, mostly as part of full-chain CCS project
development, in several countries, including those where CCS development has been lagging
behind (e.g. full-chain CCS projects in Switzerland or the Czech Republic – in both cases
proposals are currently in the early preparation phase with a view towards applying for this
Innovation Fund).

The level of CCS-related activities varies significantly among the assessed European
countries. From the country-specific information in the Annex attached to this report, rapid
developments in north-western Europe (especially in the North Sea region) can be seen, in
contrast to no or very little tangible progress in development of CO2 storage projects or project
plans in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.
Reasons for the lack of progress may include i) CCS is not part of the national energy and
climate-protection policies (due to CO2 emission reduction by other means including, for

41
example, an increased share of energy from nuclear power in some countries, ii) a lack of
awareness of the technology, iii) insufficient geological storage capacity or iv) other socio-
economic issues.

Strong growth has been observed in new full-chain CCS projects and/or low-carbon/zero-
emission cluster initiatives. Some of these have been acknowledged by the EC as key cross-
border infrastructure projects that link the energy systems of European countries, called
“Projects of Common Interest (PCI)”. These projects also have the right to apply for funding
from the “Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)”, which supports energy, transport, and digital
infrastructure. Five projects focused on “cross-border CO2 network development” are
indicated in the 2020 PCI list:

(1) CO2-Sapling project (CO2 Shipping And PipeLine Infrastructure and North Sea
ReGeneration) as the transportation infrastructure component of the Acorn full-chain
CCS project and its follow-up international CO2 transportation network to storage sites
in the North Sea Basin reusing existing natural gas pipelines (UK, in further phases NL
and NO);

(2) CO2TransPorts aims to establish infrastructure that will facilitate large-scale CO2
capture from the Ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp as well as the North Sea Port and
transport of CO2 for storage in the Dutch P18 gas fields (Phase 1) and other North Sea
storage sites (Phases 2&3);

(3) Northern Lights project as a commercial transport connection project between

several European capture initiatives (UK, IE, BE, NL, FR, SE) with CO2 carried by ship to a
storage site on the Norwegian continental shelf with plans for future expansion;

(4) Athos project (Amsterdam-IJmuiden CO2 Transport Hub & Offshore Storage) for
infrastructure to transport CO2 from industrial areas in the Netherlands, the European
mainland and Ireland to storage sites (depleted natural gas fields) in the Dutch section
of the North Sea;

(5) Ervia Cork project in Ireland that proposes to repurpose onshore and offshore
existing natural gas pipelines and construct new dedicated CO2 pipeline-to-port facilities
for the transport of CO2 captured from heavy industry and two gas-fired power plants
for storage in the offshore Kinsale gas field, in the first phase. The overall aim is to
develop an open-access cross-border interoperable high-volume transportation
structure. CO2 storage is not yet permissible in Ireland but transboundary transport is
possible. Ervia signed a MoU with the Northern Lights project in September 2019 and
was awarded PCI status in November 2019.

42
These PCI projects are mainly focused on joint transport solutions, but are aiming to enable
permanent geological storage of CO2 in offshore subsurface structures. All five projects listed
above were subsequently successful in applying for the CEF funding and obtained grants from
the 2020 CEF Energy call for proposals. For example, the PORTHOS project will receive more
than EUR 100 million for the development of a CO2 transport network. An even larger portion
of grant money of EUR 2.1 billion will be set aside for the PORTHOS project by the Dutch
government5. These funds are reserved for contract-for-difference arrangements for four early
suppliers of CO2 to the PORTHOS transport and storage system. The final investment decision
for the PORTHOS project is planned to be taken in the first quarter of 2022.

As an exemplar for national planning for full-scale projects, which are mostly linked to CO2
storage options in the North Sea Area, it is worth highlighting the decision of the Norwegian
Parliament to fund the Longship CCS project, taken in December 2020. The decision includes
funding of the Northern Lights project – the transport and storage part of the Longship project.
In its first stage (to be operational during 2024), the Longship project will include CO2 capture
at the NORCEM cement plant in Brevik (part of the Heidelberg Group) and at Fortum Oslo
Varme’s waste-to-energy plant at Klementsrud, Oslo, transport by ship to an onshore terminal
near Bergen, subsequent offshore pipeline transport and storage in a saline aquifer at a depth
of 2,600 m under the seabed. Additional emission sources in Norway and other countries will
be subsequently added in later stages of the project.

In addition, some UK activities are also worthy of note. The UK Government Industrial
Decarbonisation Challenge, IDC (part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, ISCF) aims to
support decarbonisation technologies. GBP 171 million (approx. EUR 200 million) investment
was provided in phase 2 for projects planning decarbonisation actions including the following:

(1) Scotland’s Net Zero Infrastructure – NECCUS, which is an alliance of industry

government and experts. This includes a CCUS and hydrogen hub focused around the
Acorn project (also a PCI, see above), which aims to eventually develop the St Fergus
Gas Terminal as a Hub for CCS.
(2) The Northern Endurance Partnership, which is linked to two projects that aim to
decarbonise two industrial clusters in the UK:
(2a) Net Zero Teesside CCUS project, based in Teesside, is a full chain CCUS project
comprising of a consortium of five OGCI members; BP, ENI, Equinor, Shell and Total.
(2b) The Zero Carbon Humber/Humber Industrial Decarbonisation Deployment project
is focused around the Equinor-led Hydrogen to Humber (H2H) Saltend project that will
establish the world’s largest hydrogen production plant with CCS.

5
See www.porthosco2.nl/en/dutch-government-supports-porthos-customers-with-sde-subsidy-
reservation/

43
 (3) HyNet North West is based on the production of hydrogen from natural gas in the North
West of the country (Liverpool – Chester region). It includes the development of a new
hydrogen pipeline and the creation of a CCS infrastructure.
(4) South Wales Industrial Cluster (SWIC) plans to create a decarbonised industrial zone
deploying hydrogen and the development of CCUS.

Investment from the UK government continues with the GBP 1 billion (approx. EUR
1.17 billion) CCS Infrastructure Fund (CIF) that will support capital expenditure on transport
and storage networks and industrial CCS projects. This action is part of the commitment set
out in the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution issued during November 2020.
Through the current Cluster Sequencing activity, two clusters were identified for support to
achieve deployment by the mid-2020s (“Track 1”; The East Coast Cluster and Hynet in North
Wales were named in October 2021 with ACORN on the reserve list). It is expected that two
clusters will be identified for deployment by 2030 (“Track 2”), alongside reserve cluster(s).
Funding for the clusters selected is not guaranteed, but “Track 1” projects will have the first
opportunity to be considered for support through the CIF.

Other promising clusters under development include the Greensand project offshore
Denmark, and the Ravenna CCS hub in Italy (Adriatic Blue project). In addition, numerous
studies to assess new CCS project and cluster opportunities have been carried out in many
European countries. To highlight some of these efforts, a few examples of regional
assessment initiatives for clusters are included below:

- In the Baltic Sea region, a cluster of emission sources has been considered, including
the four largest Estonian power plants, the Kunda Nordic Cement plant in Estonia and
the Latvenergo TEC2 power plant in Latvia. The developed CCUS scenario includes
mineral carbonation of CO2 using oil shale ash produced in Estonia. Another planned
cluster comprises, in addition to a cement plant in Estonia, also a cement plant in
Lithuania and a storage site offshore Latvia (E6 structure). Both cluster concepts are
at research level. The first project on mineral carbonation of CO2 using oil shale ash
mentioned above is currently under development by the environmental company Ragn-
Sells in cooperation with Estonian universities.
- The STRATEGY CCUS project (funded through H2020) investigates, amongst other
opportunities, start-up regions where CCUS clusters could develop in selected
countries of Southern and Eastern Europe – France, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Greece
and Poland (more details are provided in Chapter 6).

44
For knowledge sharing and thereby driving CCS implementation forward, the CCUS Project
Network represents and supports major industrial CCUS projects that are underway in Europe.
The network was initiated as the European CCS Demonstration Project Network (2009–2018)
and has since expanded and developed and now works closely with the European
Commission to ensure that members’ needs and interests are provided for while supporting
the EU’s climate action ambitions. At the time of writing, Northern Lights, Acorn, PORTHOS
and other major CO2 storage projects are network members.

A summary of current activities regarding planning and implementation of CO2 capture,

transport and storage projects in individual European countries is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Current situation in Europe (as of 30th June 2021) regarding CO2 capture, transport and
storage projects on all scales and at all stages of planning and development, including full-
chain/cluster projects and Projects of Common Interest (PCI). Note that country infills only
reflect the most “advanced” project in the country, meaning for example, that countries that
have full-chain projects in operation or advanced planning stage may also have CO2 storage
and/or capture projects in preparation or in operation.

45
In the following subsections, selected examples of CO2 capture, transport and storage
projects are presented to demonstrate progress in the assessed countries. Some of these
projects have already been mentioned above as part of full-chain projects or PCI initiatives,
but it is worth highlighting these individual national activities also here because of their
targeted development in recent years.

5.2 CO2 capture projects

The Norwegian projects at Sleipner and Snøhvit were the first pioneering activities in Europe
with large-scale CO2 capture or, more precisely, purification of natural gas from offshore gas
production, from which the unwanted 6 CO2 content had to be separated. Other than Sleipner
and Snøhvit, no large-scale CO2 capture projects (more than 400 kt CO2/year on an industrial
process or 800 kt/year on power generation) are in operation in Europe at the moment. There
are, however, several projects under development, both early- and advanced-stage. A selection
of these projects is included below:
In Dunkirk (northern France), a consortium of 11 European stakeholders including
ArcelorMittal, Axens, IFP Energies nouvelles (IFPEN) and Total, has launched the 3D-DMX™
project to demonstrate an innovative process for capturing CO2 from industrial activities. It is
part of a larger comprehensive study dedicated to the development of the future European
Dunkirk North Sea Capture and Storage Cluster, and is connected with storage options offered
by the Norwegian Northern Lights project.
BECCS is being trialled at DRAX Power Station, North Yorkshire (UK). The first pilot project in
partnership with Leeds-based C-Capture started in October 2018, with the first CO2 captured
during early 2019 (aim was to capture 1 t CO2 per day). An additional pilot facility was installed
onsite by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Engineering Ltd. in late 2020, with the aim of capturing
300 kg CO2/day. Following the pilot project, Drax Group and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Engineering, Ltd. (part of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Group) agreed a long-term contract for
DRAX for a project that (at the date of writing) would be the largest deployment of negative
emissions in power generation anywhere in the world. This could be online as early as 2024
with the aim of storing at least 8 Mt CO2 per year by 2030.
In Norway, several capture projects with the specification to achieve capture rates of about
100 to 400 kt/year are in preparation. As part of the Norwegian Longship full-chain project,
NORCEM’s cement factory in Brevik aims to capture 400,000 t/year (or 50%) of CO2 emissions
from the plant and the capture facility at Fortum Varme’s waste-incineration plant at

6
The natural gas produced from the Sleipner field contained too much CO2 to be marketable. Thus, it
had to be separated. In addition, Norway has a tax for offshore CO2 emissions making it cheaper to
store than emit.

46
Klemetsrud, Oslo, aims to capture 400,000 t/year (or 90%) of CO2 emissions from the plant. It
is planned that both facilities will be connected to the Northern Lights PCI.

In recent years, Sweden's focus around CCS activities has been directed towards CO2 capture
and therefore several demonstration CO2 capture projects have been established. For
example, the pilot plant at PREEM’s Lysekil refinery has recently started testing CO2 capture
from its hydrogen production unit with the aim of capturing around 500 kt CO2 per year for
transport and storage within the Northern Lights project. PREEM’s ambition is to have a full-
scale plant in operation by 2025. In addition, Stockholm Exergi AB inaugurated their test
facility for bio-energy production with carbon capture and storage at their biofuel-fired
combined heat and power plant in Värtan in 2019. In autumn 2020, Stockholm Exergi received
additional funding from the Swedish Energy Agency to continue and expand research at the
Värtan site. As of spring 2021, Stockholm Exergi is conducting an in-depth feasibility study
with the aim of constructing a full-scale bio-CCS facility within four years (planned completion
during 2025). In addition, Cementa has stated that they plan to capture around 1.8 Mt CO2/year
from their largest cement plant (in Slite, Gotland) in 2030 (although there are currently
uncertainties around their environmental permit).

In Denmark, a new capture test pilot is under construction for the waste incineration facility in
Copenhagen (EUDP 2020-I Net Zero Carbon Capture på ARC). The cement producer Aalborg
Portland has also received funding to develop an integrated a CO2 capture and synthetic fuel
production facility (GreenCem, supported by EUDP).

A number of pilot projects for investigating capture-relevant issues include test centres,
operated by the industry or scientific institutions as well as small-scale installations at
industrial facilities or research institutions. Examples are indicated below:

Norway has two operational capture pilots/test centres:

1) The Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM), originally established as the first step in the
development of a full-scale process to capture CO2 from the combined heat and power
plant (CHP) at Mongstad. Plans for full-scale capture were cancelled by the
government in 2017, but the facility is now the world’s largest test centre for CO2
capture technologies. TCM Mongstad is operated by Equinor and owned by the
Norwegian State through Gassnova with Equinor, Shell and Total as industrial partners.
2) The SINTEF AS CO2 capture pilot plant at Tiller is a test facility for development of post-
combustion CO2 capture which has been active since 2010. It consists of a complete
absorption and desorption plant with a CO2 capacity of 50 kg CO2/h. The facility is part
of the European ECCSEL initiative (Quale et al. 2017).

47
In the Carbon2Chem project, CO2 separation and purification for CO2 utilisation is being tested
and optimised at the Thyssen Krupp integrated iron and steel mill in Duisburg, Germany. In
Germany, a post-combustion capture pilot facility is also in operation at the Niederaußem Test
Centre for amine scrubbing (by RWE Power, BASF/Linde) that captures CO2 from flue gases
of the coal-fired Niederaußem power plant enabling capture rates of up to 7.2 t/day.

In the Netherlands, CO2 is captured from the AVR (Afvalverbranding Rijnmond) waste
incineration stack in Duiven for greenhouse horticulture usage; 100 kt/year has been captured
since August 2019.

In Belgium, since 2016 the LEILAC1 project has investigated capture of process emissions
from the calciner using CALIX direct separation technology at the HeidelbergCement plant in
Lixhe. The pilot is operational and has the capacity to capture about 25 kt CO2/year. Within
the LEILAC 2 project (2020–2025), industrial upscaling is in progress: A demonstrator for the
direct separation technology will be built at the HeidelbergCement plant in Hannover,
Germany, which will capture about 20% of the plant's process emissions (about 100 kt
CO2/year).

In Spain, LafargeHolcim will start building a capture plant in its cement plant of Almeria at the
end of 2022 using the Carbon Clean’s technology. It will start capturing 10% of CO2 emissions,
subsequently ramping up to 100%. The final goal is to implement capture plants on all its four
cement plants in the country.

In Iceland, a series of Carbfix projects have been running since 2007. CO2 (and H2S) has been
captured at a geothermal power plant, dissolved in water and injected into basaltic rocks for
mineral storage from 2014 onwards (see also 5.3). This operation has achieved over 70,000 t
CO2 and 30,000 t H2S injected to date. Furthermore, in 2021 a pilot project started that is
capturing 3,500 t CO2 annually from a methane plant at a landfill site in Southwest Iceland.

The Swiss company Climeworks is pioneering in CO2 capture from the atmosphere (Direct Air
Capture, DAC) and achieved a technology readiness level for this method which is sufficient
to enable large-scale application. After successful pilot operations under the EU-funded
Carbfix2 project, Climeworks has commissioned a plant named "Orca" that combines
Climeworks' direct air capture technology with subsurface storage of CO2 in basaltic rocks.
The plant comprises the world’s first commercial direct air capture and storage (DACCS) chain
removing 4,000 t CO2 per year from the atmosphere. Another pilot project of direct air capture
was started on the air-cooling units at the deep geothermal plant site of Balmatt in Mol,
Belgium, in 2018.

The UK Government provided GBP 100 million (approx. EUR 117 million) for projects to help
develop DAC and GHG removal in the UK and a second phase is planned to support the most
promising technologies. It is anticipated that a new UK sustainable biomass strategy will be

48
published during 2022, which is expected to consider recommendations on CCS and biomass
use from the UK Committee on Climate Change’s 2020 progress report.

The “Pilot-scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT)” facility in the UK (part of the UK
Translational Energy Research Centre, TERC) includes a solvent-based carbon capture plant
enabling post-combustion capture research with different fuels and under different
combustion conditions.

5.3 CO2 transport projects

There is one CO2 transport facility already in operation as part of a running large-scale CCS
project; the 150 km-long pipeline for transporting CO2 from the Melkeøya gas terminal to the
offshore Snøhvit storage site in the Norwegian Barents Sea.

Another CO2 pipeline in operation in Europe is part of the Croatian Ivanić EOR project, where
CO2 is brought via an 88 km-long pipeline from a gas processing facility at the gas condensate
field Molve close to the Hungarian border, recompressed and injected through several wells
into two oil reservoirs of the Ivanić and Žutica fields.

In the Netherlands, a CO2 pipeline is operated by OCAP CO2 B.V. to supply CO2 to end users
for greenhouse-based farming. Several hundred kt CO2 per year come from a Shell refinery
and from the bioethanol production plant by Alco and are delivered to more than 600
greenhouse farmers. In the future, the OCAP infrastructure may be connected with the Porthos
CO2 transport and storage network which is now under development as a PCI (see above).

As part of the Northern Lights CCS project, a new pipeline is planned from a storage terminal
and pumping station at the premises of CCB Kollsnes AS near Bergen. From there, the CO2 will
be pumped through a 110 km-long pipeline and injected for permanent storage into the
approved Aurora geological reservoir below the North Sea bed.

Various other transport scenarios, including pipelines and ships, are currently being developed
as part of the CCS clusters described earlier. One example is the Swedish “Carbon
Infrastructure Capture (Cinfracap)” project in which two refineries, two combined heat and
power plants (CHPs), a port owner and a gas transport company analyse possible options for
a shared CO2 capture and transport infrastructure in western Sweden centred around the port
of Gothenburg. After completion of the pilot study phase in March 2021, planning for a second
project phase is underway.

49
5.4 CO2 storage projects
Since publication of the Rütters et al. 2013 report, the number of operational European large-
scale storage projects has not changed. The only two projects – Sleipner and Snøhvit offshore
Norway that were established to store the CO2 separated from the produced natural gas –
continued their operation. No new large-scale projects have come online as of the date this
new report was published. There are, however, several new projects under preparation. The
most accelerated development and advanced progress is found in low-carbon/zero-emission
clusters under development, in particular (but not only), the five projects with the PCI status
described earlier.

The most advanced project under development is Northern Lights – the storage part of the
Norwegian Longship CCS project. The project development plan has been approved and the
preparation of the Aurora storage site in the North Sea, west of Bergen, is now in full flow, with
the expectation of being operational in 2024.

Other noteworthy large-scale storage site developments include (non-exhaustive list):

- the Acorn storage site, ca. 100 km offshore Scotland, straddling multiple depleted oil
and gas fields, with the Goldeneye gas field planned as the first storage site;
- the P18-2, P18-4 and P18-6 depleted gas fields offshore Rotterdam as storage sites
for the PORTHOS project;
- the Endurance structure (saline aquifer) ca. 75 km offshore Eastern England as a
storage site for CO2 captured from the proposed Net Zero Teesside (NZT) and Zero
Carbon Humber (ZCH) clusters;
- the Greensand project plans for storage in depleted North Sea oil fields, offshore
Denmark.

Pilot-scale storage sites have not increased significantly in terms of project numbers. Only the
Icelandic Carbfix pilot for in-situ mineral storage, which started at the Hellisheidi geothermal
power plant in 2014, has successfully developed its activities, having stored around 70 kt CO2
to date. As a part of the EU-funded GECO project, the feasibility of geothermal fluid re-injection
will be further tested at pilot scale in different geological settings at sites in Germany, Turkey
and Italy. A pilot plant storing CO2 from a methane plant at a landfill came online in 2021,
where 3.5 kt CO2 is captured and injected annually in basalt formations in Southwest Iceland.

At the end of 2017, after a successful research period of about 13 years and injection of some
67 kt CO2, the German Ketzin pilot injection site finished after a scheduled abandonment of all
wells and disassembly of the surface facilities.

The Hontomín injection pilot in carbonate rocks in Northern Spain was operational from 2014.
The Hontomín pilot project has, unfortunately, not achieved the planned amounts of CO2
injected due to political and administrative reasons and was put on hold in 2018. No
communication has been issued regarding future CO2 injection at the site.

50
Efforts to develop new storage pilots (including those combined with EOR) have been
registered in several countries (e.g. Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Romania) but none
have yet matured to a stage close to construction. The ENOS project report “Study on new
pilot and demonstration project opportunities for CO2 geological storage onshore in Europe”
(Saftić et al. 2020) provides a portfolio of six conceptual case studies - suggested pilot
projects - with a wide geographical spread (Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania). If implemented, these pilot projects will bring significant knowledge and practical
experience on CCS to European regions that so far have limited development of the
technology, including the South-Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltic Sea region. Some
of these suggested pilot projects are now undergoing further development.

5.5 CO2-EOR
Commercial operations using CO2 injection in hydrocarbon fields which have been in
production for a long time, with the purpose of increasing oil production (CO2-driven enhanced
oil recovery or CO2-EOR), have been ongoing in Hungary (since 1970s), Turkey (since 1980s)
and Croatia (since 2010s). In all cases, the activities are run by national oil companies and use
predominantly natural (geological) sources of CO2, either produced directly for this purpose
or separated from produced natural gas that contains a fraction of CO2.

The possibility to use and store anthropogenic CO2 captured during enhanced hydrocarbon
recovery (i.e. not using natural CO2 extracted from the subsurface) has only been considered
in recent years. Oil produced by CO2-EOR with anthropogenic CO2 can have a significantly
lower carbon footprint than, for example, oil imported to Europe from other parts of the world,
as has been clearly demonstrated in the ECO-BASE project. Development studies on CO2-EOR
combined with CO2 storage have been carried out in all three countries mentioned above. CO2-
EOR is also an option considered in Austria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Romania, with studies and projects in different stages of assessment and planning (e.g. the
ECO-BASE and ENOS project reports).

In general, CO2-EOR could represent a good opportunity to kick-start broader CCUS activities
in several countries (particularly of Central and Eastern Europe where depleting oil fields are
present), provided the existing regulatory and financial barriers can be overcome and the CO2
used is anthropogenic. This approach could follow the example of the USA and Canada where
CO2-EOR has enabled infrastructure development that has facilitated other CO2 storage
projects, and has supported the development of positive business cases for CO2 storage
projects as well as the development of relevant experience and expertise of CO2 capture,
transport and injection. In contrast, in some European countries, CO2-EOR will not be allowed
because it is not considered a CO2 emission mitigation option and, accordingly, may meet
public opposition. Denmark has even decided to phase out oil and gas production entirely by
2050 and plans to ban CO2-EOR soon.

51
Chapter 6: CO2 storage research activities on a national,
regional and European level
The overview presented here includes projects active as of 30th June 2021, as well as projects
completed between 2013 and 2021, which were not listed in the Rütters et al. 2013 State of
Play report. Information was compiled from the country-based questionnaires and
supplemented with information retrieved from organisation- and/or project websites where
available. The map (Fig. 8) presents data from the 32 countries assessed through
questionnaires, whereas some tables include also information on five additional countries
participating in European research projects.

A total of 152 research institutions conducting CO2 storage-related research (Fig. 8) were
reported. Further details are presented in Table 7 and in the Annex.

The period from 2013 to 2021 witnessed an increased involvement in EU-funded research on
CO2 storage in countries in eastern and south-eastern Europe, while west and northwest
European countries have expanded their activities in terms of number of projects and intra-
European collaboration networks. According to the information received, current research “hot
spots” are Norway, Poland, UK and Italy followed by France, The Netherlands, Portugal and
Spain (Fig. 8). In contrast, in Germany, for example, less CO2 storage research has been
undertaken in recent years compared with the Rütters et al. 2013 assessment7.

For the purpose of this report, projects are subdivided into:

a) EU projects funded through FP7 and H2020 programmes (6.1),

b) other multinational/regional efforts and initiatives funded or facilitated through European
Energy Research Alliance (EERA), ERA-NET Co-fund “Accelerating CCS Technologies (ACT)”,
regional networks, the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS), European Space Agency
(ESA) and EU projects of particular regional significance (6.2), and
c) national research projects (6.3).

7
In the current assessment “less research” means fewer research institutions reported as active in
the annex, whereas the 2013 assessment also took other indicators into account (for details, see
Rütters et al. 2013).

52
Figure 8: Geographical distribution of the 152 research institutions reported to be involved in CO2
storage-related research in Europe given as the number of research institutions in each
country involved in CO2 storage research.

6.1 CO2 storage research funded through FP7 and H2020

The CORDIS website provides information on 34 EU-funded projects addressing subsurface
storage of CO2. Table 3 lists the projects active as of June 30th 2021, as well as projects
completed between 2013 and June 2021, which were not included in the Rütters et al. 2013
State of Play report. Table 4 provides an overview of the countries participating in each
project.

53
Table 3: List of projects addressing subsurface storage of CO2, supported through FP7 and H2020
funding, ongoing or completed after 2012, which were not included in the Rütters et al. 2013
report. Projects active as of 30th June 2021 are shown in bold typeface. Projects primarily
focusing on storage are highlighted in blue; projects where aspects of subsurface storage are
included but not the main focus are highlighted in green. Project are listed in alphabetical
order of acronyms.
Acronym and Funded
project ID under Coord. Full project title End date
3D H2020- France DMX Demonstration Dunkirk 30.04.2023
838031 EU.3.3.2
ACCSESS H2020- Norway Providing access to cost-efficient, replicable, 30.04.2025
101022487 EU.3.3.2 safe and flexible CCUS
ACT H2020- Norway Accelerating CCS technologies as a new low- 31.01.2021
691712 EU.3.3.2., carbon energy vector
3 and 4
C4U H2020- UK Advanced carbon capture for steel industries 31.03.2023
884418 EU.3.3.2. integrated in CCUS Clusters
CarbFix2 H2020- Iceland Upscaling and optimizing subsurface, in situ 31.01.2021
764760 EU.3.3.2 carbon mineralization as an economically
viable industrial option
CGS EUROPE FP7- France Pan-European coordination action on CO2 31.10.2013
256725 ENERGY Geological Storage
CHEERS H2020- Norway Chinese-European emission-reducing 30.09.2023
764697 EU.3.3.2 solutions
CLEAN H2020- UK Carbon fracturing and storage in shale with 20.07.2022
846775 EU.1.3.2. wellbore infrastructure monitoring.
CLEANKER H2020- Italy Clean clinker production by calcium looping 31.03.2022
764816 EU.3.3.2 process
CO2-REACT FP7- France Geologic carbon storage 28.02.2017
317235 PEOPLE
ConsenCUS H2020- Nether- Carbon-neutral clusters through electricity- 30.04.2025
101022484 EU.3.3.2 lands based innovations in capture, utilisation and
storage
DISCO2 STORE H2020- France Discontinuities in CO2 storage reservoirs 31.01.2025
101007851 EU.1.3.3.
ECCSELERATE H2020- Norway ECCSEL ERIC – accelerating user access, 31.12.2022
871143 EU.1.4.1.1. growing the membership and positioning
internationally to ensure long-term
sustainability
ENOS H2020- France Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe 31.08.2020
653718 EU.3.3.2.3
EPSKS H2020- UK Efficient pore-scale kinetic simulation of gas 02.07.2020
793007 EU.1.3.2. flows in ultra-tight porous media
GATEWAY H2020- Norway Developing a pilot case aimed at establishing a 30.04.2017
657263 EU.3.3.2. European infrastructure project for CO2
transport
Continued on next page

54
Table 3: (continued) List of projects supported through FP7 and H2020 funding.

Acronym and Funded

project ID under Coord. Full project title End date
GATIPOR H2020- France Guaranteed fully adaptive algorithms with 31.08.2021
647134 EU.1.1. tailored inexact solvers for complex porous
media flows
GECO H2020- Iceland Geothermal emission control 30.09.2022
818169 EU.3.3.2
GeoERA H2020- Nether- Establishing the European geological surveys 28.02.2022
731166 EU.3.3.2 & lands research area to deliver a geological service
EU.3.5 for Europe
GEoREST H2020- Spain Predicting earthquakes induced by fluid 31.01.2024
801809 EU.1.1. injection
IMPACTS FP7- Norway The impact of the quality of CO2 on transport 31.12.2015
308809 ENERGY and storage behaviour
IMPACTS9 H2020- UK IMplementation Plan for Actions on CCUS 28.02.2022
842214 EU.3.3 Technologies in the SET Plan
LEILAC2 H2020- France Low emission intensity lime and cement 2: 31.03.2025
884170 EU.3.3.2 Demonstration scale
MIRECOL FP7- Nether- Remediation and mitigation of CO2 leakage 28.02.2017
608608 ENERGY lands
OMNICS H2020- Denmark Observing, modelling and predicting in situ 09.03.2018
653241 EU.1.3.2. petrophysical parameter evolution in geologic
carbon storage system
PilotSTRATEGY H2020- France CO2 geological pilots in strategic territories 30.04. 2026
101022664 EU.3.3.2.
REALISE H2020- Norway Demonstrating a refinery-adapted cluster- 30.04.2023
884266 EU.3.3.2 integrated strategy to enable full-chain CCUS
implementation
S4CE H2020- UK Science for clean energy 31.12.2020
764810 EU.3.3.2
SECURe H2020- UK Subsurface evaluation of carbon capture and 31.05.2021
764531 EU.3.3.2. storage and unconventional risk
SSFZEP H2020- UK Support stakeholders in zero emission fossil 31.10.2021
826051 EU.3.3 fuel power plants and energy intensive
industry
SPM-RS H2020- Norway Smart proxy models for reservoir simulation 31.08.2022
895406 EU.1.3.2.
STEM-CCS H2020- UK Strategies for environmental monitoring of 29.02.2020
654462 EU.3.3.2.3 marine carbon capture and storage
STRATEGY CCUS H2020- France Strategic planning of regions and territories in 30.04.2022
837754 EU.3.3.2. Europe for low-carbon energy and industry
through CCUS
ULTIMATECO2 FP7- France Understanding the long-term fate of 30.11.2015
281196 ENERGY geologically stored CO2

55
Table 4: Overview of CO2 storage-related research projects and participating countries funded through
the FP7 and H2020 programmes. Data were compiled from country reports, in some cases
supplemented by online sources. Countries marked in grey are not covered in detail in the
report but are included here for completeness. Dark green: coordinator, light green:
participant. For project details, see Table 3.

th Completed 2013–June 2021,

Active as of 30 June 2021
not in 2013 report

STRATEGY CCUS

ULTIMATECO2
PiloSTRATEGY
DISCO2STORE
ECCSELERATE

CGS EUROPE
ConsenCUS

CO2 REACT
CLEANKER

GATEWAY

STEM-CCS
MIRECOL
GEoREST

CarbFix2
ACCSESS

OMNICS
GeoERA

IMPACT
REALISE
LEILAC2
CHEERS

SPM-RS

SECURe
Gatipor
CLEAN

EPSKS
GECO

ENOS
Countries

S4CE
C4U

ACT
3D

# of participating European
6 8 8 4 2 6 6 5 5 1 8 32 1 7 4 7 10 1 9 9 4 22 7 15 1 4 7 6 1 7 5 6
countries
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Malta
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom

56
6.2 Other multinational/regional CO2 storage research projects
A total of 21 multinational/regional projects and initiatives addressing CO2 storage have been
or are funded and/or facilitated through ACT (Tab. 5), EERA, RFCS, ESA and regional networks.
An overview of the projects and participating countries is shown in Table 6.

ACT (Accelerating CCS technologies) is an international initiative, initially co-funded as an

ERA NET Co-fund through Horizon2020 and then entirely funded from national resources of
participating countries. ACT supports research and innovation projects that can lead to
accelerating and maturing safe and cost-effective CCUS technologies. Between 2017 and
2020, ACT has funded eleven storage-related research projects involving international
collaboration (Tables 5 and 6). Key research topics addressed by these projects are
monitoring, storage capacity assessment, and land planning/infrastructure. In addition, at the
time of going to press, ACT announced that an additional 12 projects had been selected for
funding from the recent 2020 call including four projects addressing aspects relating to CO2
storage. 8

Table 5: Storage-related projects supported by ACT.

Acronym Full project title

ACORN ACORN
ACTOM ACT on Offshore Monitoring
ALIGN-CCUS Accelerating Low carbon Industrial Growth through CCUS
DETECT Determining the risk of CO2 leakage along fractures in caprocks using an integrated
monitoring and hydro-mechanical-chemical approach
DIGIMON Digital monitoring of CO2 storage projects
ECOBASE Establishing CO2 enhanced Oil recovery Business Advantages in South Eastern Europe
ELEGANCY Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy via Hydrogen and CCS
Pre-Act Pressure control and conformance management for safe and efficient CO2 storage
REX-CO2 Reusing existing wells for CO2 storage operations
SENSE Assuring integrity of CO2 storage sites through ground surface monitoring
SUCCEED Synergetic Utilisation of CO2 storage Coupled with geothermal Energy Deployment

8
These four recently announced ACT projects are: CEMENTEGRITY (well cements for improved
integrity and sealing), ENSURE (microseismic monitoring for compliance and public acceptance),
RETURN (safe and cost-effective storage in depleted oil and gas fields) and SHARP (improved
assessment of rock stress and failure scenarios).

57
EERA activities. The European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) is a research pillar of the
European Strategic Energy Plan (SET-Plan) with the task of aligning R&D activities of individual
research organisations with SET-Plan priorities. The EERA Joint Programme on Carbon
Capture and Storage (JP CCS) has participants from 14 countries and works to coordinate
national and European research and innovation programmes facilitating knowledge sharing
and synergies. The JP CCS has sub-programmes (SPs) addressing CO2 capture, transport and
storage. The CO2 storage SP is organised into three areas: monitoring, static modelling and
dynamic modelling. Among the activities relevant for CO2 storage, the JP CCS cooperates
closely with the European CCS Research Infrastructure “ECCSEL“ (see Chapter 6.3), and the
European Zero Emissions Technology and Innovation Platform (ZEP). It supports H2020 CCS
projects, continues to contribute to the SET-Plan, and builds collaborations outside Europe
through participation in workshops and fact-finding missions facilitated by the European
Commission.

RFCS activities. The Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) supports research and
innovation projects in the areas of coal and steel. A complete list of projects funded through
RFCS (2017–2020) is available on the RFCS website. RFCS funding policy is in line with the
European Green Deal, supporting zero-carbon steel-production by 2030. RFCS funds a number
of CCS-related projects including: COALBYPRO, which aims to develop new methods for
management of coal/lignite by-products and handling CO2 emissions from their combustion,
ROCCS – Establishing a Research Observatory to unlock European Coal seams for Carbon
dioxide Storage, and “LOWCARBONFUTURE – Exploitation of projects for a low carbon future
steel industry”. For country participation in these projects, see Table 6.

Baltic Region: The regional Baltic CCS network (BASRECCS) is a network of experts and
stakeholders operating as an association. The association hosts an annual conference called
the Baltic Carbon Forum (BCF). BASRECCS initiates, carries out and participates in regional
projects and activities. For example the RouteCCS project (Routing Deployment of Carbon
Capture, Use and Storage CCUS in the Baltic Sea Region) is coordinated by Uppsala University,
organised by BASRECCS and funded by the Swedish Institute. The network has a task force
on geological storage which plays a vital role in the CGS Baltic EUSBSR seed project which is
currently developing a CO2 geological storage project plan for the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). For
participating countries, see Table 6.

North Sea: The Norwegian CCS Centre (NCCS) is an international research cooperation on
CO2 capture, transport and storage, co-financed by the Research Council of Norway, industry
and research partners. The Centre supports achieving CO2 storage in the North Sea, and
realisation of a full-chain CCS project by 2022. For projects and participating countries, see
Table 6.

58
Table 6: Overview of European, multinational and regional projects addressing CO2 storage funded/
facilitated through GeoERA, RFCS, ESA, ACT and regional networks (ongoing projects are
marked in green, completed projects in yellow). Data were retrieved from country reports, in
some cases supplemented by online sources. Countries marked in grey are not covered in
detail in the report but are included here for completeness. Dark green: coordinator, light
green: participant.

GeoERA REGIONAL RFCS ACT projects ACT projects

ESA
projects NETWORKS projects granted 2019 granted 2017
GeoERA - GeoConnect3d

RouteCCUS (BASRCCS)

LOWCARBONFUTURE
GeoERA - 3DGEO-EU

CCS SPACEMON
NORDIC CCS

COALBYPRO

ALIGN CCUS

ELEGANCY
DIGIMON

SUCCEED

ECOBASE
BASRCCS

REX-CO2

Pre-ACT
ACTOM

DETECT
ACORN
ROCCS

SENSE
NCCS

Countries
# of participating European
16 7 9 7 7 4 4 5 3 2 3 7 5 5 5 5 7 5 3 5 3
countries
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Malta
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom

59
Nordic Countries: The NORDICCS project (2011–2015) established a virtual carbon capture
and storage (CCS) networking platform aiming to increase CCS deployment in the five Nordic
countries through close collaboration between research institutions and industry. The project
produced a web-based storage atlas, and investigated CCS scenarios for the region,
particularly with respect to transport and centralised storage. For participating countries, see
Table 6.

The European Space Agency (ESA) was involved in a feasibility study on satellite-
based/supported site monitoring (Spacemon) in collaboration with Airbus, Axio and the British
Geological Survey (2011–2013).

Promising CCUS start-up regions in Southern and Eastern Europe were developed in the
H2020 project STRATEGY CCUS 9. The eight regions, summarized below, are considered
promising for the development of low-carbon energy and industry through CCUS:

- Lusitanian Basin, Portugal: CO2 from industry and power generation is to be captured
and stored. The anticipated storage capacity is 340 Mt CO2 onshore and 1,600 Mt CO2
offshore. Several co-generation biomass plants are under construction or planned,
providing the potential for bioenergy generation with CCS (BECCS).
- Ebro Basin, Spain: The presence of geological structures with large, medium, and
small storage capacity offers the potential for early onshore storage development.
There are opportunities for several commercial CCU technologies. The presence of a
transport network from Barcelona port could link CO2 sources with storage sites and
CO2 utilisation opportunities.
- Rhône Valley, France: Capture is planned on several high, medium and small-scale
CO2 emitters. There is potential for early storage development in the south-east
geological basin onshore, and offshore beneath the Mediterranean Sea. A Rhône
Valley transport corridor could connect the region and neighbouring countries with
large North Sea storage sites.
- Paris Basin, France: This region includes a range of small-to-medium emitters in the
Paris and Orleans metropole areas. Potential CO2 storage sites include onshore
depleted hydrocarbon fields and deep saline aquifers. Potential storage capacity in
2009 was estimated at 60-140 Mt CO2. The potential exists to connect CCUS clusters
to large North Sea storage sites. Captured CO2 can be used in existing greenhouses
(CO2SERRE project; Gravaud et al. 2021), or permanently stored in the subsurface, in
some cases as part of geothermal projects (CO2-DISSOLVED).

9
The description of the STRATEGY CCUS regions is included here because of their regional and
multinational relevance.

60
 - Northern Croatia: This region covers the Zagreb and the Croatian part of the
Pannonian basin. Geological CO2 storage capacity in deep saline aquifers and depleted
hydrocarbon fields has been evaluated at 2.7 Gt CO2 by the long-since finished FP6
projects CASTOR and EU GeoCapacity. Additional storage capacities are being
assessed for ongoing CO2-EOR projects and CO2-EOR candidates. Two future hubs are
envisaged – Eastern cluster and Central cluster, with CO2 in the Eastern cluster to be
transported to the Beničanci oil field and Bokšić gas field in eastern part of the Drava
depression for enhanced recovery.
- West Macedonia area, Greece: Plans for CO2 capture focus on the Kozani and
Ptolemaida industrial areas with small-to-large-scale emitters. Five (coal/lignite-fired)
power plants account for around 30.5 Mt CO2 emitted each year. High CO2 storage
potential exists in the Mesohellenic Trough, in north-western Greece. Capacity of the
Pentalofos and Eptachori Formations is estimated at 1.02 and 0.13 Gt CO2,
respectively.
- Galati area, Romania: Plans include the Port of Galati and 42 major industrial
installations along the Danube River. Storage options include EOR and depleted
hydrocarbon reservoirs, as well as onshore and offshore deep saline aquifers. River
and canal links to the Black Sea offer the potential for CO2 transport by shipping
combined with pipelines.
- Upper Silesia, Poland: The industrial areas of Katowice, Rybnik and Bedzin are being
considered, with 16 coal mines, ten large power plants, coking plants and metallurgical
industry. Potential CO2 storage sites have already been identified and capacities
estimated, and these comprise one aquifer site and three coal seam sites. Three
potential research areas have been identified in the Upper Silesia Coal Basin.

GeoERA “Establishing the European Geological Surveys Research Area to deliver a Geological
Service for Europe” 10 is an ERA-NET Co-Fund Action run by the national and regional
Geological Survey Organisations of Europe (GSOs). It receives funding through H2020 (2018–
2022). The overall goal of this ERA NET is to integrate information and knowledge held by the
GSOs on subsurface energy, water and raw material resources. Together with the EC, the
GeoERA consortium organises and co-funds transnational research projects, including for
example:

10
Although GeoERA does not directly address CO2 storage, we include it here because of its relevance
to geological storage and trans-national cooperation.

61
 1) The GeoConnect³d project that is developing and testing a new methodological
approach to prepare and disclose geological information for policy support and
subsurface management. The project includes regional case studies of the Roer-to-
Rhine region and the Pannonian basin. Applicability of the regional results at pan-
European level is being tested by applying the methodologies in two smaller pilot areas
in southern Germany and Ireland.
2) The “3DGEO-EU (3D geomodelling for Europe)” project aims to harmonise geological
data and 3D geological models across national boundaries to create a basis for trans-
European assessments of resource potential and eventual consideration of conflicts
of use.

For an overview of participating countries, see Table 6.

6.3 National research related to CCS

Note: The information provided by the questionnaires about national projects varied
substantially with respect to detail, which made statistical handling of this information
unfeasible. The information about national projects should therefore be considered qualitatively
rather than quantitatively.

A total of 18 countries reported to have conducted or are in the process of carrying out > 90
nationally funded projects related to CO2 storage since 2012, ranging from development of
test sites and dedicated laboratories to PhD projects (Tab. 7). Few budget numbers are readily
available for these projects, making it difficult to compare the scale of the national efforts
beyond a qualitative assessment of number of projects and the topics addressed. The focus
of national research projects on CO2 storage in Europe appears to be focused on storage
capacity assessment (addressed by 16 out of 18 countries) and modelling of subsurface
storage processes (14 countries), with less attention given to well technology, social
acceptance, and complex management (addressed by 8, 8 and 9 countries, respectively).

Considering research activities on the different parts of the CCS chain, it can be stated that in
some countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Spain, the research focus
has been on advancing CO2 capture technologies rather than on storage in recent years. Also,
CO2 utilisation research is prioritised in comparison to CO2 storage in some countries such as
Germany and Finland. For example, Finland focuses its research activities on CCU and clean
H2 production, including capture on bioenergy production and conversion to sustainable
chemicals and materials, and direct air capture powered by solar photovoltaic systems.

Thirteen countries reported that they host large-scale CCS research facilities (Tab. 7). These
range from specialist laboratory facilities to entire test sites. An abbreviated list is given
below. Detailed information is found in the country reports (see Annex). For information on
pilot and demonstration projects on CO2 capture, transport and storage, see Chapter 5.

62
Table 7: Key statistics for CCS-related research activities in European countries based on country
reports, in some cases supplemented by on-line sources. Countries marked in grey are not
covered in detail in the report but are included here for completeness. Countries participating
only in GeoERA projects are indicated with an asterisk in the column “Number of research
institutions involved in CO2 storage research”. The column “Number of country-country links”
indicates the engagement with other European countries as the sum of other participating
countries in all projects a given country is involved in (calculated from Tables 4 and 6).

National statistics Multinational statistics

Number of Number of
Dedicated Number of Number of
research nationally Large scale CCS Number of
national funding projects each projects
Countries institutions funded research country-country
instruments for country coordinated by
involved in CO2 CO2 storage infrastructure links
CCS research participates in each country
storage research research projects

Albania 1* 1 31
Austria 2 5 74
Belgium 2 Yes 8 1 91
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 2 46
Bulgaria 1 1 21
Croatia 2 2 5 89
Cyprus 1* 1 31
Czech Republic 3 3 6 90
Denmark Yes 4 1 11 1 78
Estonia 1 1 5 54
Finland 1 Yes 6 1 80
France Yes 9 19 Yes 25 10 196
Germany Yes 5 6 Yes 33 1 233
Greece 4 10 1 98
Hungary 3 1 3 67
Iceland 3 8 2 71
Ireland 3 3 3 49
Italy Yes 13 3 Yes 15 2 121
Latvia 1 4 66
Lithuania 1 1 5 80
Luxemburg 1* 2 46
Malta 1* 1 31
Netherlands Yes 6 20+ Yes 28 3 183
North Macedonia 1 1 31
Norway Yes 15 20+ Yes 27 16 169
Poland Yes 18 1 Yes 14 128
Portugal 6 2 Yes 4 66
Romania 2 2 12 126
Serbia 2 3 50
Slovakia 3 4 81
Slovenia 5 4 81
Spain 6 17 1 142
Sweden Yes 4 Yes 9 1 93
Switzerland Yes 4 1 Yes 12 65
Turkey 3 Yes 5 44
Ukraine 4 2 3 52
United Kingdom Yes 17 3 Yes 33 9 189

63
ECCSEL CCUS infrastructure network: Five countries, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway
and the UK, coordinate a large part of their CO2 research infrastructure through the EU-funded
ECCSEL network and the ECCSEL European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC).
ECCSEL lists over 80 facilities operated by 23 different universities, institutes etc. The facilities
range from a single instrument to a full laboratory or pilot plant or field test site. Each of the
five countries has institutes active in CO2 research who are not ECCSEL members. ECCSEL
offers open access to their CCUS research facilities to address the following aspects of CO2
capture and transport: Membranes, integrated CCUS systems, pressure/injection, migration,
security/ troubleshooting, CO2 pipeline transport and integrity, shipping of CO2, smart
integration with carbon capture and re-use into valuable products.

In terms of CO2 storage, field laboratories and pilots related to CO2 storage and monitoring
(facilities that are part of ECCSEL are indicated) include:

- the Sotacarbo Fault Laboratory (Italy, Sardinia, injection and monitoring to 250 m
depth along a fault in rhyolite, ECCSEL),
- the GeoEnergy Test Bed (UK, injection and monitoring to 280 m depth in strata
equivalent to North Sea storage targets, ECCSEL),
- the Svelvik CO2 field laboratory (Norway, four 100 m deep instrumented monitoring
wells around a central injection well in glaciomarine sediments, ECCSEL),
- the Andra underground research laboratory (France, tunnel system at ca. 500 m
depth in Jurassic clay, boreholes and test facilities, ECCSEL),
- the Flair soil station (France, a mobile laboratory for tracking CO2 in the shallow
vadose zone, ECCSEL),
- the Mont Terri underground rock laboratory (Switzerland, operated by the Swiss
Geological Survey, used by a number of national and international consortia),
- CATLAB (Oise, France, CATenoy experimental site and gas-water-rock interactions
LABoratory, CO2 injection and tracking in a chalk aquifer to 25 m depth, ECCSEL),
- the Panarea Natural Laboratory (Italy, seafloor leakage of CO2, ECCSEL),
- the Latera Natural Laboratory (Italy, onshore leakage of CO2, ECCSEL),
- the Rijswijk Center for Sustainable Geo-energy (RCSG) Test RIG and Large Well
(Netherlands, drilling rig and existing borehole for testing, ECCSEL).

64
In addition, noteworthy, smaller-scale research facilities on CO2 capture, transport or storage
reported in the questionnaires, include the following:

- CO2 capture from naturally carbonated waters in the area of Spa, Belgium.
- In Germany, capture technology research facilities are operated by TU Darmstadt, the
University of Stuttgart, Research Centre Jülich, etc. on, for example, carbonate-
looping and membrane technologies.
- A clinker cooler pilot plant was built and tested at the Heidelberg Cement plant in
Hannover, Germany (EU project CEMCAP).
- The FALCON CO2 Flow Loop Laboratory operated by the Norwegian Institute for
Energy Research (IFE) in Kjeller, near Oslo, Norway.
- DeFACTO CO2 flow loop facility, operated by SINTEF in Trondheim, Norway. 139 m
horizontal and up to 90 m (depth) vertical loops for the Demonstration of Flow
Assurance for CO2 Transport Operations.
- Equinor maintains a pipeline transport test facility for natural gas and CO2 at their
research premises in Porsgrunn, Norway.
- CO2 Transport research facility and safety platform: Mont la Ville experimental site in
Oise (France, ECCSEL).
- In Portugal, the academia-industry collaborative “NET4CO2” maintains laboratory
facilities for testing CO2 capture through the continuous formation of gas hydrates
using the patented NETMIX technology.
- Turkey lists the TUPRAS Izmit Refinery Capture pilot site, where the MOF4AIR project
is ongoing.
- CO2 injection pilot tests at the Umurlu Geothermal Field, and the Kizildere Geothermal
Field, Turkey, in the SUCCEED project.
- Pilot-scale Advanced-Capture-Technology (PACT) facilities, UK.
- A UK initiative scoping the opportunity for a CO2 storage testbed.

65
6.4 Global collaboration
Companies and research institutions from non-European countries are involved in several
European CO2 storage-related research projects (Tab. 8).

Table 8: Non-European involvement in European CO2 storage-related research projects.

Regional networks
ACT
H2020 projects
projects
active as of ACT projects granted 2019
granted
30th June 2021
2017

ALIGN CCUS
ConsenCUS

MemCCSea
DIGIMON

REX-CO2
LAuNCH

Pre-ACT
CHEERS

ACTOM

PrISMa

SENSE
NCCS
C4U

Countries
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
CHINA
JAPAN
U.A.E.
USA

Mission Innovation (MI), launched in 2015, is a global intergovernmental platform comprising

representatives from 22 countries and the European Commission (on behalf of the European
Union) for clean energy innovation through action-oriented cooperation. The follow-up
initiative, Mission Innovation 2.0, was launched on 2nd June 2021 to continue catalysing action
and investment in research, development and demonstration to make clean energy affordable,
attractive and accessible for all, this decade. The following European countries are members
in the Mission Innovation initiative: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK (EU MS also effectively contribute under part the EU
umbrella).

The North Sea Basin Task Force (NSBTF) was established in 2005 by the Governments of the
UK and Norway. Today the Task Force is composed of government and industry members
from Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Flanders. The task force aims to develop
common principles for managing and regulating the transport, injection and permanent
storage of CO2 in the North Sea sub-seabed ensuring cost-effective and environmentally
responsible operations. Furthermore, it aims to share knowledge between the governments
and industries of represented countries as regulation and projects develop.

66
Chapter 7: National actors driving CCS forward, public
awareness and engagement
Note: The information presented in this chapter is largely based on the personal perceptions
and experiences of the individual authors, scientific surveys are not available in the literature for
all countries or projects. Thus, no clear statistics and rating could be given and only tendencies
and trends will be reported on a more general level with specific examples.

In many of the studied European countries, awareness of and knowledge about CCS
technology within the general public is still low to very low (Fig. 9) and CCS is often perceived
as a risky technology largely due to its unfamiliarity. Striking exceptions are Iceland and
Norway (see below). For industrial and political stakeholders, a somewhat higher awareness
and knowledge together with a more positive perception is reported for many countries. The
topic of climate change has a higher awareness level than CCS technology in the general
public in many countries – however, the drivers and the potential consequences of climate
change, and the magnitude of changes required to meet climate targets, are often also quite
poorly understood by the general public.

For Norway and Iceland, high and very high awareness levels, respectively, and neutral to
positive attitudes towards CCS, are reported (cf. Fig. 9):

- Norway: In Norway there is a broad political consensus in favour of CCS among all
political parties and main political players including, for example, trade unions and the
Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises. The relatively high public awareness and
knowledge about CCS can, in part, be a result to the Government’s investment in high-
profile projects such as the Technology Centre Mongstad (capture test centre) and the
Norwegian full-scale CCS Longship demonstration project (including the Northern
Lights project). The fact that CO2 storage in Norway will continue to be carried out
offshore presumably facilitates public acceptance.
- Iceland: CCS technology in general and in particular the “Carbfix technology” involving
CO2 mineralisation in basalt is widely known and its public acceptance is very high due
to numerous public information and engagement activities by the Carbfix partners and
other national advocates. Additional likely reasons for the high knowledge and
acceptance level in Iceland include, amongst others, the following:
i) the “Carbfix technology” is based on processes that also occur in nature,
ii) the rapid mineralisation significantly reduces the risk of CO2 leakage,
iii) the “Carbfix technology” has been developed at a geothermal plant, i.e. in the
renewable energy sector, rather than the oil and gas sector,
iv) the “Carbfix technology” is perceived as an Icelandic brand within the energy and
utility sector.

67
Figure 9: Public awareness and knowledge of CCS in European countries as perceived by this report’s
national contributors during 2020. In countries with hatched infill, awareness and acceptance
was locally higher in the areas surrounding pilot projects than in the rest of the country.

At various pilot sites, informing and engaging the local public living around the respective
projects has been successful, for example, in Hontomín (Spain), Ketzin (Germany), Cork
(Ireland) and Hellisheidi (Iceland). At all these sites, it was found that the better the knowledge
about the technology, the more the project (and CCS technology in general) was accepted by
the local population. Accompanying social scientific studies also revealed that the
characteristics of the relational context in which the people came to learn about CCS
technology or the pilot project were an important factor for how the technology or project was
perceived: An open interactive format, which allowed for rich exchange and discussion,
favoured acceptance. In contrast, a more frontal approach and imposition of projects
appeared to stimulate reactions of rejection.

68
In several European countries (e.g. Slovenia, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Germany), the
interest in and the media coverage of CCS technology has slightly to moderately increased in
recent years – in particular during the negotiations on national CO2 emission-reduction targets
and measures to reach these targets. In some countries, the perception of CCS technology is
more positive for capture from industrial facilities (e.g. Germany), on bioenergy plants
(BECCS) or in combination with direct capture of CO2 from the air (DACCS) (e.g. Belgium,
Sweden, Switzerland) as compared to capture from fossil-fuelled power generation. In
industrial facilities, non-energy related CO2 emissions are inherent to some of the industrial
processes, for example, the calcination process during cement production. Thus, applying
CCS for such industrial facilities is perceived as a (potentially) acceptable emission-reduction
measure, whereas CCS on power is considered an obstacle to advancing the transition from
a fossil based towards a renewable energy-based system in some countries. Combining
geological CO2 storage with energy generation from biomass or with direct air capture
potentially allows “negative” CO2 emissions that may be required for compensating hard-to-
abate GHG emissions, for example, from agricultural soils. In many countries, this additional
benefit leads to a more positive perception of these technologies in comparison to CCS on
power. Storage offshore is often perceived as less risky than onshore storage and therefore
has a (somewhat) higher acceptance (e.g. in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands).

In some countries (e.g. Estonia, Finland, Belgium, Germany, Portugal), carbon capture and
utilisation (CCU) receives more attention from the public and politicians than CO2 storage.
Likely reasons for this include the economic benefits of CCU, capturing/removing CO2 being
more straightforward to regulate and having a higher public acceptance of CCU as compared
to CCS. In some of these countries, in particular where there is no suitable geology in-country
or where legislation forbids CO2 storage, the stated intention is to store the CO2 that cannot
be utilised elsewhere through projects such as Longship.

There are various national advocates of the CCS technology in some of the studied European
countries that have stipulated the discussion on the pros and cons of the CCS technology in
comparison to other (technological) options for reducing CO2 emissions:

- National CO2 Clubs and Networks: In France, Italy, Romania, Spain and the UK, national
“CO2 clubs” have been established by universities/research institutes and/or
companies covering, for example, the oil and gas industry, equipment manufacturing/
distribution, as well as a wide range of support services that promote CCS as one
technological measure for CO2 emission reduction:

69
 - PTECO2: Plataforma Tecnológica Española del CO2,
- Romanian CO2Club,
- CO2 Club Italia,
- French Club CO2,
- CATO, The Netherlands,
- UKCCSRC – UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre,
- SCCS – Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage,
- CCSA – UK Carbon Capture and Storage Association,
- Norwegian Petroleum Directorate CO2 Storage Forum.

- National scientific or engineering academies, think tanks or governmental fora such

as the Danish Council on Climate Change (Klimarådet), Denmark, National Academy
of Science and Engineering (acatech) and Energy Systems of the Future (ESYS)
Initiative of the German Academies of Sciences, Germany, Irish Academy of
Engineering, Ireland, and Fossil Free Sweden Initiative and FORES think tank, Sweden,
have considered CCS. Also, the Norwegian non-governmental organisation Bellona is
strongly advocating the need for CCS implementation in Europe.

- Individual institutions such as the geological surveys or a specific research institution.

- The national representatives of European regional networks such as BASRECCS,

ENeRG or representatives of emission-intensive industries.

70
Chapter 8: Summary and conclusions
The 2021 update of the state-of-play on CO2 geological storage in Europe demonstrates clear
progress in the roll-out of CO2 storage since the first assessment in 2012 (Rütters et al. 2013).
After a decrease in the number of CCS projects and initiatives between 2010 and 2017, there
is a continuing steady increase in the number of projects in Europe, a trend which is also
observed worldwide (GCCSI 2020). The decline in the number of CCS projects from 2013 to
2017 was mainly related to the difficulty in setting up robust economic business models and
to the lack of recognition of the role of CCS in the climate change mitigation toolbox. The
notable progress in CCS implementation has been stimulated by recent developments in
European and national climate-protection targets and policies that are being implemented to
meet the climate protection targets set by the Paris Agreement in 2015, as well as the
European Green Deal and the European Climate Law, which enshrines in law the objective of
the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050.

The focus of CCS-related activities has shifted from research and pilot-scale testing to the
planning and implementation of larger-scale CCS projects and clusters. Progress is
particularly tangible in Norway, the Netherlands, and the UK where large-scale CCS projects
involving more than one emitter or emission clusters are currently being implemented. These
projects use both national and European funding, for example, the EU support of transport
infrastructure projects (Projects of Common Interest). Simultaneously, companies and sites
offering a “CO2 transport and storage service” are emerging such as the Longship project. In
Iceland, after pioneering CO2 storage by mineral storage in basalt formations, larger-scale
follow-up projects on CO2 mineral storage are currently evolving.

In most European countries, the focus for applying CCS is now on emissions from the
industrial sector that are hard to abate, such as chemical, steel, cement and waste-to-energy
plants, whereas emphasis was placed on capture from fossil-fuel-fired power plants at the
time of the previous assessment. Recently, capture on other CO2 emitters/sources such as
geothermal plants, low-carbon “blue” H2 production (i.e. hydrogen production from natural gas
with CCS) or directly from the air has received increased attention with several projects
currently in the advanced planning stage. In addition, bioenergy generation with CCS is being
discussed and advanced in several countries as a promising option for potentially achieving
negative CO2 emissions.

In some countries, CO2 capture and utilisation (CCU) is currently favoured over CO2 storage by
the public and politicians, being considered a (value-creating) technological option for CO2
emission reduction and an essential building block for an envisaged circular economy. The
potential for emission reduction of CCU strongly depends on the envisaged types of utilisation,
the permanence of CO2 “storage” in the final product, the scale of application and the overall
lifetime carbon footprint of the technology. The use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery from
depleting reservoirs is being considered in Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia,

71
Lithuania, Poland, Croatia and Turkey with projects in different stages of assessment and
planning. Operating CO2-EOR projects have been reported from Croatia, Hungary and Turkey.
Implementation of CO2-EOR projects may represent a good opportunity to kick-start broader
CCUS activities in several countries, for example, in Central and Eastern Europe. In some other
European countries, the continued oil production by CO2-EOR is regarded with some
scepticism in terms of its climate benefits, by the public and politicians.

Research activities on CCS have focused on capture and storage with comparatively few
projects investigating aspects of CO2 transport. CO2 capture involves a range of different
technologies that are being optimised through R&D. Capture from industrial emissions and
alternative CO2 sources (e.g. cement, steel or geothermal plants, H2 production or direct air
capture) is now under investigation and specific challenges for the different settings are being
researched. CO2 storage research is largely focused on refining aspects of the technology to
improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Apart from the two operational large-scale, commercial CCS projects at Sleipner and Snøhvit
in Norway and the two smaller-scale Icelandic CO2 mineral storage operations, no other CO2
injection and storage sites are currently in operation in Europe. CO2 injection operations at the
pilot sites at Ketzin (Germany), K12B (The Netherlands), and Lacq (France), have finished as
planned and the development of the onshore pilot site at Hontomín, Spain, has stalled. As a
result, there is still limited experience with licencing and regulating CO2 storage operations in
Europe.

Updates of national storage capacity assessments have been reported by the majority of
countries assessed, reinforcing the need for an up-to-date, consolidated and harmonised
European CO2 storage atlas. In most European countries, saline aquifers and
depleted/depleting hydrocarbon fields are considered for storage of dense-phase CO2 with
offshore locations being preferred over onshore locations in most coastal countries.

Public interest in CCS and related media coverage has increased in many European countries
over recent years. One aspect that helped to bring CCS back onto national emission-reduction
agendas in some countries is the potential of CCS to deliver negative CO2 emissions when
combined with bioenergy use or direct air capture. From reported local experiences and
scientific investigations, it can be concluded that where local stakeholders are informed and
understand CCS technology, a higher level of acceptance is observed. An early, open and
transparent stakeholder dialogue and engagement generally led to a reported higher level of
acceptance of CCS technology and/or specific projects.

Overall, a wide range of activity and knowledge levels on CCS across Europe is evident from
our survey, which underpins the continued need for pan-European knowledge exchange,
technology transfer and cooperation on CCS to roll-out CO2 capture, transport and storage at
the scale required to achieve significant CO2 emission reductions in Europe.

72
References
Note: This reference lists includes references from the report and from the Annex.

Aagaard, P., Anthonsen, K.L., Mortensen, G.M., Bergmo, P. & Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó. (2014): Screening
and ranking of aquifer formations, storage units and traps. — NORDICCS technical report
D.6.2.1301, 44 p.

acatech (eds.) (2018): CCU und CCS – Bausteine für den Klimaschutz in der Industrie: Analyse,
Handlungsoptionen und Empfehlungen. — Report/acatech POSITION, München, Herbert Utz
Verlag, 70 p.

Akin, S. (2019): Technical assistance for developed analytical basis for formulating strategies and
actions towards low carbon development. — EU Carbon Capture and Storage Directive
Regulatory Impact Assessment Findings (in Turkish); available at www.lowcarbonturkey.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ LCDTR_KYDD_Bulgular_SerhatAkin.pdf (accessed: July 2020)

ALIGN-CCUS (2021): Final report public. — Report D0.1.3, 59 p.

Andersen, H., Svendsen, H.E.S., Solum, S., Yang, Z., Teberikler, L., Solvang, S., & Vreenegoor, L. (2021):
Experimental study of CO2 two-phase flow regime in a large diameter pipe. — Proceedings TCCS-
11 - Trondheim Conference on CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, Trondheim, Norway;
available in SINTEF Proceedings7: 40-44. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2780194

APA (2019): Roadmap for carbon neutrality 2050 — Long-term strategy for carbon neutrality of the
Portuguese economy by 2050. — Report, Lisbon, Portugal, 101 p.

Aradóttir, E.S.P., Sonnenthal, E.L., Björnsson, G. & Jónsson, H. (2012): Multidimensional reactive
transport modeling of CO2 mineral sequestration in basalts at the Hellisheidi geothermal field,
Iceland. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9: 24-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.02.006
Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J., Burruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N.P. & Mathiassen, O.M.
(2007): CO2 storage capacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. — International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 1: 430-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00086-2

Bachu, S., CSLF Task Force on CO2 Storage Capacity Estimation, & USDOE Capacity and Fairways
Subgroup of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Program. (2008): Comparison
between methodologies recommended for estimation of CO2 storage capacity in geological
media. — Phase III Report (CSLF-T-2008-04), 17 p.

Bader, A.G., Thibeau, S., Vincké, O., Delprat Jannaud, F., Saysset, S., Joffre, G.H., Giger, F.M., David, M.
Gimenez, M., Dieulin, A. & Copin, D. (2014): CO2 storage capacity evaluation in deep saline
aquifers for an industrial pilot selection. Methodology and results of the France Nord Project. —
Energy Procedia, 63: 2779-2788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.300
Baele, J.-M., Raucq, V., De Weireld, G., Legrain, H., Billemont, P., Tshibangu, K. & Dupuis, C. (2007):
Geological storage of CO2: new concepts from storage capacity evaluation in Belgian
Westphalian rocks. — EGU Geophysical Research Abstracts, 9 (09651).

73
Baklid, A., Korbol, R. & Owren, G. (1996): Sleipner vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a shallow
underground aquifer. —SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, SPE-
36600-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/36600-MS.

Bense, F. & Jähne-Klingberg, F. (2017): Storage potentials in the deeper subsurface of the Central
German North Sea. — Energy Procedia, 114: 4595-4622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1580

Bentham, M. (2015): Irish Sea Carbon Capture and Storage project. — Final report, British Geological
Survey Commissioned Report, 9 p.; available at:
www.gsi.ie/documents/IrishSea_summary_report.pdf

Berber, H., Tamm, K., Leinus, M-L., Kuusik, R., Tõnsuaadu, K., Paaver, P. & Uibu, M. (2020): Accelerated
carbonation technology granulation of industrial waste: Effects of mixture composition on
product properties. — Waste Management and Research, 38: 142-155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19886646

Bernardes, L., Carneiro, J., Madureira, P., Brandão, F. & Roque, C. (2015): Determination of priority study
areas for coupling CO2 storage and CH4 gas hydrates recovery in the Portuguese offshore area.
— Energies, 8: 10276-10292. https://doi.org/10.3390/en80910276

Boavida, D., Carneiro, J., Martínez, R., van den Broek, M., Ramirez, A., Rimi, A., Tosato, G. & Gastine, M.
(2013): Planning CCS development in the West Mediterranean. — Energy Procedia, 37: 3212-
3220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.208

Bohloli, B., Skurtveit, E., Grande, L., Titlestad, G.O., Børresen, M.H., Johnsen, Ø. & Braathen A. (2014):
Evaluation of reservoir and cap-rock integrity for the Longyearbyen CO2 storage pilot based on
laboratory experiments and injection tests. — Norwegian Journal of Geology, 94: 171-187.

Braathen, A., Bælum, K., Christiansen, H.H., Dahl, T., Eiken, O., Elvebakk, H., Hansen, F., Hanssen, T.H.,
Jochmann, M., Johansen, T.A., Johnsen, H., Larsen, L., Lie, T., Mertes, J., Mørk, A., Mørk, M.B.,
Nemec, W., Olaussen, S., Oye, V., Rød, K., Titlestad, G.O., Tveranger, J. & Vagle, K. (2012): The
Longyearbyen CO2 Lab of Svalbard, Norway - initial assessment of the geological conditions for
CO2 sequestration. — Norwegian Journal of Geology, 92: 353-376.

Bryhn, T., Brønn, P., S., & Håndlykken, E. (2018): Beyond Acronyms: Persuasive Messaging for CCS
Engagement. — Proceedings of the 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference
(GHGT14), Melbourne, Australia; available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3365759

Butnar, I., Cronin, J. & Pye, S. (2020): Review of carbon capture utilisation and carbon capture and
storage in future EU decarbonisation scenarios. — Final Report, UCL Energy Institute, 53 p.

Carneiro, J., Martínez, R., Suaréz, I., Zarhloule, Y. & Rimi, A. (2015): Injection rates and cost estimates
for CO2 storage in the west Mediterranean region. — Environmental Earth Sciences, 73, 2951-
2962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4029-z

Christensen, N.P. & Holloway, S. (2004): Geological Storage of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel
(GESTCO). — Summary Report, EU FP5 project no. ENK6-CT-1999-00010, 32 p.

Christensen, N. P. et al. (2006): Storage capacity of Central European and East European countries. —
In Le Thiez, P.: CO2, from capture to storage (CASTOR), WP 2.1 Report.

74
CIEMAT-CISOT (2017): Estudio de percepción pública de la CAC. — Ed. PTECO2,
https://www.pteco2.es/es/publicaciones/estudio-de-percepcion-publica-de-la-cac

Civile, D., Zecchin, M., Forlin, E., Donda, F., Volpi, V., Merson, B. & Persoglia, S. (2013): CO2 geological
storage in the Italian carbonate succession. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
19: 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.08.010

Clark, D.E., Gunnarsson, I., Aradóttir, E.S., Arnarsson, M.Þ., Þorgeirsson, Þ.A., Sigurðardóttir, S.S.,
Sigfússon, B., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Oelkers, E.H. & Gíslason, S.R. (2018): The chemistry and
potential reactivity of the CO2-H2S charged injected waters at the basaltic CarbFix2 site, Iceland.
— Energy Procedia, 146: 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.016
Clark, D.E., Oelkers, E.H., Gunnarsson, I., Sigfússon, B., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Aradóttir, E.A. & Gíslason,
S. R. (2020): CarbFix2: CO2 and H2S mineralization during 3.5 years of continuous injection into
basaltic rocks at more than 250 °C. — Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 279: 45-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2020.03.039

Coombes, P.R. (2019): Assessing the viability of Norwegian carbon capture and storage technology via
application of a socio-technical framework. — Master Thesis, University of Stavanger, 142 pp;
available at https://uis.brage.unit.no/uis-xmlui/handle/11250/2621780.

Czernichowski-Lauriol, I., Czop, V., Delprat-Jannaud, F., El Khamlichi, A., Jammes, L., Lafortune, S.,
Nevicato, D. & Savary, D. (2021): The gradual integration of CCUS into national and regional
strategies for climate change mitigation, energy transition, ecological transition, research and
innovation: an overview for France. — Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E, 14 p., available at SSRN:
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3821672

De Dios, J.C. & Martínez, R. (2019): The permitting procedure for CO2 geological storage for research
purposes in a deep saline aquifer in Spain. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
91: 102822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102822

DG CLIMA – Directorate-General for Climate Action (European Commission) (2019): Going climate-
neutral by 2050: A strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-
neutral EU economy. — 20 p.; available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/92f6d5bc-76bc-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1

Diamond, L.W, Leu, W., & Chevalier, G. (2010): Studie zur Abschätzung des Potenzials für CO2-
Sequestrierung in der Schweiz. — Schlussbericht BFE-Projekt 102922, 23 p.; available at
https://www.aramis.admin.ch/Texte/?ProjectID=26461

Diamond, L.W, Aschwanden, L., Adams, A. & Egli, D. (2019): Revised potential of the Upper Muschelkalk
Formation (Central Swiss Plateau) for CO2 storage and geothermal electricity. — SCCER-SoE
Annual Conference, Presentation S3a_08; available at http://static.seismo.ethz.ch/sccer-
soe/Annual_Conference_2019/AC19_S3a_08_Diamond.pdf

Donda, F., Volpi, V., Persoglia, S. & Parushev, D. (2011): CO2 storage potential of deep saline aquifers:
the case of Italy. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 327-335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.009

75
Dupont, N. & Baele, J.-M. (2009): Contribution of terrigenous rocks of South Belgian coal deposits in
geological storage of CO2: the sandstone case. — Geophysical Research Abstracts EGU General
Assembly, 11, 12880-12881; available at
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-12880-1.pdf

Dütschke, E., Wohlfarth, K., Höller, S., Viebahn, P., Schumann, D. & Pietzner, K. (2016): Differences in the
public perception of CCS in Germany depending on CO2 source, transport option and storage
location. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 53: 149-159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.043

Dütschke, E., Wohlfarth, K., Schumann, D., Pietzner, K., Carpantier, R., Schwarz, A. & von Winterfeld, U.
(2015): Chancen für und Grenzen der Akzeptanz von CCS in Deutschland. — Final Report of
Project „CCS-Chancen“, Karlsruhe, 35 p.; available at
http://publica.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-354659.html

EBN & Gasunie (2017): Transport and Storage of CO2 in The Netherlands / Transport en opslag van CO2
in Nederland. — Verkennende studie door Gasunie en EBN in opdracht van het ministerie van
Economische Zaken; available at https://www.ebn.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 07/Studie-
Transport-en-opslag-van-CO2-in-Nederland-EBN-en-Gasunie.pdf.

EC – European Commission (2013): Number of project proposals submitted to the EIB under the
NER300 funding programme by 3 July 2013 per Member State. — available at
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/funding/ner300/docs/project proposals en.pdf

EEA – European Environment Agency (2020): EU ETS emissions by activity type. Chart 5 in The EU
emissions trading system briefing. — available from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/the-eu-emissions-trading-system.

Element Energy (2017): Deployment of an industrial carbon capture and storage cluster in Europe: a
funding pathway. – Report, 52 p.; available at https://i2-4c.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/i24c-
report-Deployment-of-an-industrial-CCS-cluster-in-Europe-2017-Final-.pdf
Elforsk (2014): CCS in the Baltic Sea region - Bastor 2, Final Summary Report. —Elforsk report 14:50,
66 p.

ESYS (2019): Biomasse im Spannungsfeld zwischen Energie- und Klimapolitik – Strategien für eine
nachhaltige Bioenergienutzung. — Report/Schriftenreihe zur wissenschaftsbasierten
Politikberatung, München, acatech (eds.), 105 p.; available at
http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:2-105631

European Court of Auditors (2018): Demonstrating carbon capture and storage and innovative
renewables at commercial scale in the EU: intended progress not achieved in the past decade.
– Special report No 24/2018; 76 p.; available at
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47082.

FEK – Government Gazette Issue (2011): Joint Ministerial Decision 48416/2037/Ε.103/07-11-2011 ”On
Measures and conditions for the geological storage of carbon dioxide.” — Official Gazette,
B(2516/7-11–2011).

76
FEK – Government Gazette Issue (2013): Joint Ministerial Decision 36060/1155/Ε.103/13-06-2013
“Definition of framework of rules, measures and procedures for the integrated prevention and
control of environmental pollution from industrial activities”. — Official Gazette, B(1450/14-6–
2013).

Ferrière, J., Reynaud, J.Y., Pavlopoulos, A., Bonneau, M. & Migiros, G. (2004): Geologic evolution and
geodynamic controls of the Tertiary intramontane piggyback Meso-Hellenic Basin, Greece. —
Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 175: 361-381. https://doi.org/10.2113/175.4.361

Flaathen, T., Gíslason, S.R., Oelkers, E.H. & Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á.E. (2009): Chemical evolution of the Mt.
Hekla, Iceland, groundwaters: A natural analogue for CO2 sequestration in basaltic rocks. —
Applied Geochemistry, 24: 463-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.12.031
FOEN – Federal Office for the Environment (2020): Quelle pourrait être l'importance des émissions
négatives de CO2 pour les futures politiques climatiques de la Suisse? — Report addressing
Postulat 18.4211 Thorens Goumaz (in French), e-parl 14.09.2020 11:33; available at
https://www.parlament.ch/centers/eparl/curia/2018/20184211/Bericht%20BR%20F.pdf

FOEN – Federal Office for the Environment (2021): Switzerland's Long-Term Climate Strategy. —
available at https://unfccc.int/documents/268092

Furre, A.K., Eiken, O., Alnes, H., Vevatne, J.N. & Kiør, A.F. (2017): 20 years of monitoring CO2 injection at
Sleipner. — Energy Procedia, 114: 3916-3926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1523

Gíslason, S.R., Sigurdardóttir, H., Aradóttir, E.S. & Oelkers, E.H. (2018): A brief history of CarbFix:
Challenges and victories of the project‘s pilot phase. — Energy Procedia, 146: 103-114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.014

GCCSI – Global CCS Institute (2020): Global Status of CCS 2020. — Report, 80 p.

Goodman, A., Hakala, A., Bromhal, G., Deel, D., Rodosta, T., Frailey, S., Small, M., Allen, D., Romanov, V.,
Fazio, J., Huerta, N., McIntyre, D., Kutchko, B. & Guthrie, G. (2011): U.S. DOE methodology for the
development of geologic storage potential for carbon dioxide at the national and regional scale.
— International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5: 952-965.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.03.010

Gravaud, I., M. L. Veloso, F., Prézélus, F., Bidel, A., Diallo, T., Zrida, M., Malanda, N., Chauzeix, B., Laurent,
F., Villeneuve, J., Doucet, M., Lambert, M., Lalizel, B. & Combe, M. (2021): Biomass-origin carbon
capture, storage and utilization in greenhouses: The Co2serre project in Centre-Val De Loire
(France). — Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, 13 p.;
available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3812275
Grude, S., Landrø, M. & Dvorkin, J. (2014): Pressure effects caused by CO2 injection in the Tubåen Fm.,
the Snøhvit field. – International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 27: 178-187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.05.013

Gudbrandsson S., Wolff-Boenisch, D., Gíslason, S.R. & Oelkers, E.H. (2008): Dissolution rates of
crystalline basalt at pH 4 and 10 and 25-75°C. — Mineralogical Magazine, 72: 155-158.
https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2008.072.1.155

77
Gunnarsson, I., Aradóttir, E.S., Oelkers, E.H., Clark, D.E., Arnarson, M.Þ., Sigfússon, B., Snæbjörnsdóttir,
S.Ó., Matter, J.M., Stute, M., Júlíusson, B.M. & Gíslason, S.R. (2018): The rapid and cost-effective
capture and subsurface mineral storage of carbon and sulfur at the CarbFix2 site. —
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 79: 117-126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.08.014

Gutknecht, V., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Sigfússon, B., Aradóttir, E.S. & Charles, L. (2018): Creating a carbon
dioxide removal solution by combining rapid mineralisation of CO2 with direct air capture. —
Energy Procedia, 146: 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.017

Gysi, A. & Stefansson, A. (2011): CO2-water-basalt interaction. Numerical simulation of low temperature
CO2 sequestration into basalts. — Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 75: 4728-4751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.05.037
Halland, E.K. (2019): Offshore storage of CO2 in Norway. — In: Davis, T., Landrø, M. & Wilson, M. (eds.);
Geophysics and Geosequestration, Cambridge University Press, p. 195-208.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480724.

Halland, E.K., Mujezinović, J. & Riis, F. (eds.) (2014): CO2 Storage Atlas — Norwegian Continental Shelf.
— The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate; available at
https://www.npd.no/en/facts/publications/co2-atlases/co2-atlas-for-the-norwegian-
continental-shelf/

Haselton, T.M. (2019): Minijos Nafta Clean Energy Project. — Oral presentation, Baltic Carbon Forum
2019, Tallinn; available at: http://bcforum.net/presentations2019/02-04-Baltic-Carbon-Forum-
2019-Nafta.pdf

Hatziyannis, G. (2009): Country updates: Greece. — In: Vangkilde-Pedersen, T. (ed.): WP2 Report –
Storage capacity. — EU GeoCapacity - Assessing European Capacity for Geological storage of
Carbon Dioxide; Project no. SES6-518318, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, p. 144-
147.
Hjelm, L., Anthonsen, K.L., Dideriksen, K., Nielsen, C.M., Nielsen, L.H. & Mathiesen, A. (2020): Evaluation
of the CO2 storage potential in Denmark. — Danmarks og Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse
Rapport 2020/46; 141 p.

Holloway, S. (ed.) (1996): The Underground Disposal of Carbon Dioxide. — Final report of Joule II Project
No. CT92-0031, British Geological Survey, 385 p.

IAE – Ireland Academy of Engineering (2016): Ireland’s 2030 greenhouse gas emission target - an
assessment of feasibility and costs. — Report Ref. No. 01/07B/11.16, 28 p.
ICF International (2013): Task 1A Member States Implementation Assessment report: Implementation
of the CCS Directive. — Report for the European Commission DG CLIMA, Specific Contract:
071201/2012/640284/SER/CLIMA.C.1., 175 p.

ICHESE – International Commission on Hydrocarbon Exploration and Seismicity in the Emilia-Romagna

region (2014): Report on the hydrocarbon exploration and seismicity in Emilia Region.— 213 p.;
available at http://mappegis.regione.emilia-romagna.it/gstatico/documenti/ICHESE/
ICHESE_Report.pdf (last access 24 September 2015).

78
IEA – International Energy Agency (2013): Methods to assess geological CO2 storage capacity: status
and best practice. — Workshop Report, IEA, Paris.

IEAGHG (2021): Exporting CO2 for offshore storage – The London Protocol’s Export Amendment and
associated guidelines and guidance. — Technical Review 2021-TR02.

IEAGHG (2005): Building the cost curves for CO2 storage: European Sector. — Report Number 2005/2.
IPCC (2018): Annex I: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R. (ed.)]. — In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-
Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia,
W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy,
E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. & Waterfield, T. (eds.)]; available from
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/ (last accessed 7/10/21)

Ishii, H., Sarma, H.K., Ono, K., & Issever, K. (1997): A successful immiscible CO2 field pilot in a carbonate
heavy oil reservoir in the Ikiztepe Field, Turkey. — 9th European Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, The Hague, Netherlands; available at https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.

ISO 27914:2017 Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and geological storage — Geological storage.
https://www.iso.org/standard/64148.html?browse=tc

ISO 27916:2019 Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and geological storage — Carbon dioxide
storage using enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR).
https://www.iso.org/standard/65937.html?browse=tc

ISO 27917:2017-1 Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and geological storage — Vocabulary — Cross
cutting terms. https://www.iso.org/standard/72969.html?browse=tc

Jankowski, B., Witkowski, S. & Badania Systemowe EnergSys Sp. z.o.o. (2014): Economic effects of the
CCS concept and its implementation in coal energy/Ekonomiczne skutki koncepcji CCS i jej
wprowadzenia w energetyce węglowej. — Energetyka/ Energetics, 1: 14 p. (in Polish)

Johnsson, F., Reiner, D., Itaoka, K. & Herzog, H. (2010): Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and
storage - an international comparison. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4:
410-418. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.006.
Karlstrøm, H. & Ryghaug, M. (2014): Public attitudes towards renewable energy technologies in Norway.
The role of party preferences. — Energy Policy, 67: 656-663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.049

Kelektsoglou, K. (2018): Carbon Capture and Storage: A review of mineral storage of CO2 in Greece. —
Sustainability, 10: 4400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124400

Kilias, A.D., Vamvaka, A., Falalakis, G., Sfeikos, A., Papadimitriou, E., Gkarlaouni, Ch. & Karakostas, B.
(2015): The Mesohellenic Trough and the Paleogene Thrace Basin on the Rhodope Massif, their
structural evolution and geotectonic significance in the Hellenides. — Journal of Geology and
Geoscience, 4: 198. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6755.1000198

79
Knopf, S. & May, F. (2017): Comparing methods for the estimation of CO2 storage capacity in saline
aquifers in Germany: regional aquifer based vs. structural trap based assessments. — Energy
Procedia, 114: 4710-4721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1605

Kolenković, I., Saftić, B. & Perešin, D. (2013): Regional capacity estimates for CO2 geological storage in
deep saline aquifers - Upper Miocene sandstones in the SW part of the Pannonian basin. —
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 16: 180-186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.04.001

Koukouzas, N., Koutsovitis, P., Tyrologou, P., Karkalis, C. & Arvanitis, A. (2019): Potential for mineral
carbonation of CO2 in Pleistocene basaltic rocks in Volos Region (Central Greece). — Minerals,
9: 627. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9100627
Koukouzas, N., Ziogou, F. & Gemeni, V. (2011): Cost of pipeline-based CO2 transport and geological
storage in saline aquifers in Greece. — Energy Procedia, 4: 2978-2983.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.207

Koukouzas, N., Ziogou, F. & Gemeni, V. (2009): Preliminary assessment of CO2 geological storage
opportunities in Greece. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3: 502-513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.10.005

Kucharič, L., Tuček, Ľ., Radvanec, M., Németh, Z., Čechovská, K., Derco, J., Bodiš, D., Baráth, I., Kubeš,
P., Šesták, P., Nagy, A., Potfa,j M., Bezák, V., Remšík, A., Michalko, J., Černák, R., Wallner, J., Liška,
P., Bilík, S., Losík, V., Lačný, J., Panák, D. & Hók J. (2011): Quantitative parameters of geological
structures suitable for CO2 storage. — Final report. Archív Geofond, SGIDS Bratislava, 303 p. (in
Slovak)

Kucharič, L., Nagy, A., Baráth, I., Bodiš, D., Kováčová, E., & Remšík, A. (2010): Better solutions for low
heat potential and underground CO2 storage produced by Duslo, a. s. — DUCOTER. 1. and 2.
Phase. DUSLO Šaľa, a. s., p. 67-56. (in Slovak)

Kucharič, L., Kotulová, J., Elečko, M., Kubeš, P., Radvanec, M., Tuček, Ľ. & Michalko, J. (2008):
Sequestration of CO2 in natural environment. — Pre-feasibility study for US STEEL sro. Košice,
96 p. (in Slovak)

Kühn, M. & Münch, U. (ed.) (2013): CLEAN CO2 Large-Scale Enhanced Gas Recovery in the Altmark
Natural Gas Field. — GEOTECHNOLOGIEN Science Report No. 19, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31677-7

Kuijper, M. (2011): Public acceptance challenges for onshore CO2 storage in Barendrecht. — Energy
Procedia, 4: 6226-6233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.635
Kulichenko, N. & Ereira, E. (2012): Carbon capture and storage in developing countries: A perspective
on barriers to deployment. — A World Bank Study, Washington D.C., p. 52-62.

Laenen, B., Laes, E., Lemeire, C., Van den Abeele, L., Van Wortswinkel, L., van Alphen, K. & Hanegraaf,
M. (2013): Evaluatie van het beleidskader en identificatie van beledisinstrumenten voor het
faciliteren van CC(U)S-projecten in Vlaanderen. — VITO, in opdracht van Departement Leefmilieu,
Natuur en Energie, 2013/TEM/R/32, 130 p.

80
Laenen, B., Van Tongeren, P., Dreesen, R. & Dusar, M. (2004): Carbon dioxide sequestration in the
Campine Basin and the adjacent Roer Valley Graben (North Belgium): an inventory. — In: Baines,
S.J., Worden, R.H. (eds.), Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. — Geological Society of London
Special Publication, 233: 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.233.01.13

Langlet, D. (2018): Using the Continental Shelf for Climate Change Mitigation: A Baltic Sea Perspective
– In: Ringbom, H. (ed.): Regulatory Gaps in Baltic Sea Governance. — MARE Publication Series
18, Springer, p. 169-193. https://doi.org//10.1007/978-3-319375070-5_1

Larsen, M., Bidstrup, T. & Dajhoff, F. (2003): Mapping of deep saline aquifers in Denmark with potential
for future CO2 storage. A GESTCO contribution. — Geological of Denmark and Greenland report
2003/39, 83 p.
Leiss, W. & Larkin, P. (2019) Risk communication and public engagement in CCS projects: the
foundations of public acceptability. — International Journal of Risk Assessment and
Management, 22:384-403. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2019.103339

Lemos de Sousa, M., Correia da Silva, Z.C., Miranda, A. & Rodrigues, C.F. (2007): The COSEQ pilot
project: CO2 Sequestration in Douro coalfield meta-anthracites (NW Portugal). — International
Seminar on Perspectives for Near-Term CCS Deployment & Capacity Building for Emerging
Economies, Porto Alegre, Brasil.

Li, J., Jacobs, A.D. & Hitch, M. (2019): Direct aqueous carbonation on olivine at a CO2 partial pressure
of 6.5 MPa. — Energy, 173: 902-910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.125

Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas (2019): Nutarimas dėl lietuvos respublikos seimo 2012 m. Lapkričio 6 d.
Nutarimo nr. Xi-2375 „dėl nacionalinės klimato kaitos valdymo politikos Strategijos patvirtinimo“
pakeitimo. — available at https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/
c6790120226d11eab86ff95170e24944?positionInSearchResults=17&searchModelUUID=ef2e
9887-b71f-41d8-9921-e86800f54307

Lothe, A., Emmel, B., Bergmo, P., Mortensen, G.M. & Frykman, P. (2014): A first estimation of storage
potential for selected aquifer cases (D25). — NORDICCS Technical Report D.6.3.1302 (D25),
56 p.

Lupion, M & Herzog, H.J. (2013): NER300: Lessons learnt in attempting to secure CCS projects in
Europe. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 19: 19-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.08.009

Lupion, M., Pérez, A., Torrecilla, F. & Merino, B. (2013): Lessons learned from the public perception and
engagement strategy. CIUDEN learnings. — Energy Procedia 37: 7369-7379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.678

Mabon, L., Vercelli, S., Shackley, S., Anderlucci, J., Battisti, N., & Boot, K. (2013): Tell me what you think
about the geological storage of carbon dioxide: towards a fuller understanding of public
perceptions of CCS. — Energy Procedia, 37: 7444-7453. DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.687

Martínez, R., Suárez, I., Carneiro, J., Zarhloule, Y., Le Nindre, Y.M. & Boavida, D. (2013a): Storage capacity
evaluation for development of CO2 infrastructure in the West Mediterranean. — Energy Procedia,
37: 5209-5219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.437

81
Martínez, R., Vincent, C., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I. Arts, R., Boavida, D., Carneiro, J., De Dios, J.C., Falus,
G.,Georgiev, G., Hladik, V., Grunnaleite, I., Kucharic, L., Nilson, P.A., Okandan, E., Persoglia, S.,
Poulsen, N., Quinquis, H., Sava, C., Suárez, I. & Wójcicki, A. (2013b): Opportunities for CO2
storage pilot projects. — CGS Europe report, October 2013, 68 p.

Matter, J.M., Stute M., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Oelkers, E.H., Gíslason, S.R., Aradóttir, E.S., Sigfússon, B.,
Gunnarsson, I., Sigurdardóttir, H., Gunnlaugsson, E., Axelsson, G., Alfredsson, H.A., Wolff-
Boenisch, D., Mesfin, K., Reguera, F., Taya, D., Hall J., Dideriksen, K. & Broecker, W.S. (2016):
Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent and safe disposal of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide emissions. — Science, 352 (6291): 1312-1314.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8132

May, F., Gerling, J.P. & Krull, P. (2002): Untertagespeicherung von CO2. — VGB Power Tech 8/2002:
45-50.

May, F. (2007): CO2 storage potential of natural gas fields in Germany. — Geotechnologien Science
Report No. 9: 143-149; available at
http://media.gfz-potsdam.de/geotechnologien/doc/Science_reports/SR09.pdf

McDermott, F. (2018): Geological GHG emission mitigation: A preliminary investigation of crushed

basalt as a soil amendment to sequester atmospheric CO2. — Final project report, 11 p.

Merkel, A. (2019): Speech. — 10. Petersberger Klimadialog (14.5.2019); available at

www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-de/aktuelles/rede-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-zum-10-
petersberger-klimadialog-am-14-mai-2019-in-berlin-1611002

Mikunda, T., Franců, J., Pereszlényi, M., Hladík, V., Kolejka, V., Kulich, J., Götzl, G., Kollbotn, L. & Jankulár,
M. (2020): Towards a strategic development plan for CO2-EOR in the Vienna Basin. — ENOS D6.7
Report, 93 p.

Moita, P., Berrezueta, E., Pedro, J., Miguel, C., Beltrame, M., Galacho, C., Mirão, J., Araújo, A., Lopes, L. &
Carneiro, J. (2020): Experiments on mineral carbonation of CO2 in gabbro’s from the Sines
massif - first results from project InCarbon. — Comunicações Geológicas, 107(II): 91-96.
https://www.lneg.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Volume_107_CIG.pdf

Mortensen, G.M., Bergmo, P.E.S. & Emmel, B.U. (2016): Characterization and estimation of CO2 storage
capacity for the most prospective aquifers in Sweden. — Energy Procedia, 86: 352-360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.01.036

Neele, F., Ten Veen, J., Wilschut, F. & Hofstee, C. (2012): Independent assessment of high-capacity
offshore CO2 storage options. — TNO Report TNO-060-UT-2012, 00414/B, 93 p.

Nikolova, K., Angelov, A., Bratkova, S. & Plochev, S. (2012): Implementation of EU requirements on
carbon capture and storage in Bulgarian Environmental Legislation. — Annual of the University
of Mining and Geology “St. Ivan Rilski”, 55 (Part II, Mining and Mineral processing): 187-192.

NLOG – Dutch Oil and Gas Portal (2020): Storage capacity. — https://nlog.nl/en/storage-capacity.

Nordbäck, N., Sopher, D., Niemi, A., Juhlin, C., Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Šliaupa, S., Šliaupiene, R.,
Wojcicki, A., Nagy, S. & Klimkovski, L. (2017): CGS Baltic seed project (S81). — Project
substance report, 84 p.; available at
http://bcforum.net/content/CGSBalticSeedProject_SubstanceReport_2017.pdf

82
NORDICCS (2016): Building Nordic Excellence in CCS. — NORDICCS - The Nordic CCS Competence
Centre, 104 p., NordForsk Report; available at
https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/project/nordiccs/nordiccs_report_single.pdf

Ogata, K., Senger, K., Braathen, A., Tveranger, J. & Olaussen, S. (2012): The importance of natural
fractures in a tight reservoir for potential CO2 storage: a case study of the upper Triassic - middle
Jurassic Kapp Toscana Group (Spitsbergen, Arctic Norway). — In: Spence, G.H. et al.: Advances
in the Study of Fractured Reservoirs; Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 374: 395-
415. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP374.9

Okandan, E., Karakece, Y., Çetin, H., Topkaya, İ., Parlaktuna, M., Akın, S., Bulbul, S., Dalha, C., Anbar, S.,
Cetinkaya, C., Ermis, I., Yılmaz, M., Ustun, V., Yapan, K., Erten, A.T., Demiralın, Y. & Akalan, E.
(2011): Assessment of CO2 storage potential in Turkey, modeling and a prefeasibility study for
injection into an oil field. — Energy Procedia, 4: 4849-4856.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.452
Olaussen, S., Senger, K., Braathen, A., Grundtvåg, S.-A. & Mørk. A. (2019): You learn as long as you drill;
research synthesis from the Longyearbyen CO2 Laboratory, Svalbard, Norway. — Norwegian
Journal of Geology, 99: 157-187. https://dx.doi.org/10.17850/njg008.

Oltra, C., Preuß, S., Germán, S., Wesche, J., Dütschke, E. & Prades, A. (2020): Stakeholders’ views on
CCUS developments in the studied regions. — STRATEGY CCUS Report, 96 p.; available at
http://publica.fraunhofer.de/starweb/servlet.starweb?path=urn.web&search=urn:nbn:de:0011-
n-6184256

Pärn, J. (2018): Origin and geochemical evolution of palaeogroundwater in the Northern part of the
Baltic Artesian Basin. — PhD Thesis, Tallinn University of Technology: TTU Press,
https://digikogu.taltech.ee/en/Item/9c05e2b0-419e-41c3-ad06-e8df3d466216

Paukovic, M., Brunsting, S. & de Best-Waldhober, M. (2011): The Dutch general public’s opinion on CCS
and energy transition : Development in awareness, knowledge, beliefs and opinions related to
information and media coverage. — CATO-2 Deliverable WP 5.3-D04; available at
https://repository.tno.nl//islandora/object/uuid:9d0d8667-9583-44ce-a740-f4cfdde143b4

Pereira, N., Carneiro, J.F., Araújo, A., Bezzeghoud, M., Borges, J. (2014): Seismic and structural geology
constraints to the selection of CO2 storage sites - The case of the onshore Lusitanian basin,
Portugal. — Journal of Applied Geophysics, 102: 21-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.12.001

Pereira, P., Ribeiro, C. & Carneiro, J. (2021a): Identification and characterisation of geological
formations with CO2 storage potential in Portugal. — Petroleum Geoscience, 27(3).
https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-123.

Pereira, P., Carneiro, J., Ribeiro, C. and Martins J. M. (2021b): Resource maturity and sensitivity analysis
of CO2 storage capacity in the Lusitanian basin. — 82nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended
Abstract, G104.

Petrounias, P., Giannakopoulou, P.P., Rogkala, A., Kalpogiannaki, M., Koutsovitis, P., Damoulianou, M.-
E. & Koukouzas, N. (2020): Petrographic characteristics of sandstones as a basis to evaluate
their suitability in construction and energy storage applications. A case study from Klepa
Nafpaktias (Central Western Greece). — Energies, 13: 1119.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051119

83
Pichot, D., Granados, L., Morel, T., Schuller, A., Dubettier, R. & Lockwood, F. (2017): Start-up of Port-
Jérôme CRYOCAP™ plant: Optimized cryogenic CO2 capture from H2 plants. — Energy Procedia,
114: 2682-2689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1532

Piessens, K. & Dusar, M. (2004): Feasibility of CO2 sequestration in abandoned coal mines in Belgium.
— Geologica Belgica, 7(3/4): 165-180; available at https://popups.uliege.be/1374-
8505/index.php?id=308

Piessens, K., Welkenhuysen K., Laenen, B., Ferket, H., Nijs, W., Duerinck, J., Cochez, E., Mathieu, P.,
Valentiny, D., Baele, J.-M., Dupont, N. & Hendriks, C. (2012): Policy Support System for Carbon
Capture and Storage and Collaboration between Belgium-the Netherlands “PSS-CCS”, Final
report. — Belgian Science Policy Office, Research Programme Science for a Sustainable
Development, Contracts SD/CP/04a,b & SD/CP/803, 335 p.

Pietzner, K., Schumann, D., Tvedt, S.D., Torvatn, H.Y., Næss, R., Reiner, D.M., Anghel, S., Cismaru, D.,
Constantin, C., Daamen, D.D.L., Dudu, A., Esken, A., Gemeni, V., Ivan, L., Koukouzas, N.,
Kristiansen, G., Markos, A., te Mors, E., Nihfidov, O.C., Papadimitriou, J., Samoila, I.R., Sava, C.S.,
Stephenson, M.H., Terwel, B.W., Tomescu, C.E. & Ziogou, F. (2011): Public awareness and
perceptions of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS): Insights from surveys administered
to representative samples in six European countries. — Energy Procedia, 4: 6300-6306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645
Pogge von Strandmann, P.A.E., Burton, K.W., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.O., Sigfússon, B., Aradóttir, E.S.,
Gunnarsson, I., Alfredsson, H.A., Mesfin, K.G., Oelkers, E.H. & Gíslason, S.R. (2019): Rapid CO2
mineralisation into calcite at the CarbFix storage site quantified using calcium isotopes. —
Nature Communications, 10: 1983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10003-8

Poulsen, N., Holloway, S., Neele, F., Smith, N.A. & Kirk, K. (2014): CO2StoP Final Report. — Assessment
of CO2 storage potential in Europe. — European Commission Contract No ENER/C1/154-2011-
SI2.611598, 61 p.; available at https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/documents/56-
2014%20Final%20report.pdf

Quale, S., Bolland, O., Grønli, M. & Rohling, V. (2017): ECCSEL – International laboratory infrastructure
for CCS research, education and innovation. — Energy Procedia, 114: 7276-7294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1859

Reinhold, K. & Müller, C. (2011): Speicherpotenziale im tieferen Untergrund – Übersicht und Ergebnisse
zum Projekt Speicher-Kataster Deutschland. — Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für
Geowissenschaften, 74: 9-27.

Ringrose, P.S. (2018): The CCS hub in Norway: some insights from 22 years of saline aquifer storage.
— Energy Procedia, 146: 166-172. https://doi.or/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.021.

Romão, I.S., Gando-Ferreira, L.M., da Silva, M.M.V.G. & Zevenhoven, R. (2016): CO2 sequestration with
serpentinite and metaperidotite from Northeast Portugal. — Minerals Engineering, 94: 104-114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2016.05.009

Rütters, H. & CGS Europe partners (2013): State of play on CO2 geological storage in 28 European
countries. — CGS Europe report 2013. No. D2.10, 89 p.; available at
http://www.cgseurope.net/UserFiles/file/News/CGS%20Europe%20report%20_D2_10_State%2
0of%20play%20on%20CO2%20storage%20in%2028%20European%20countries(1).pdf

84
RVO (2020): Kenmerken SDE++. — https://www.rvo.nl/subsidie-en-financieringswijzer/sde/kenmerken.

RWE Power International (2006): CO2 Storage Technologies Overview. — Engineering Report, 20 p.;
available at https://www.rwe.com/-/media/RWE/documents/09-verantwortung-nachhaltigkeit/
cr-berichte/EN/en-bericht-2006.pdf

Saftić, B., Hladík, V., Pearce, J., Shogenova, A., Dudu, A. & Canteli, P. (2020): Study on new pilot and
demonstration project opportunities for CO2 geological storage onshore in Europe. — ENOS
Report D6.8, 31 p.; available at http://www.enos-project.eu/media/22619/d68_final-with-
appendices_enos_653718.pdf
Saftić, B., Kolenković Močilac, I., Cvetković, M., Vulin, D., Velić, J. & Tomljenović, B. (2019): Potential for
the Geological Storage of CO2 in the Croatian Part of the Adriatic Offshore. — Minerals, 9: 577.
https://doi.org/10.3390/min9100577

Sahin, S., Kalfa, U. & Celebioglu, D. (2010): Unique CO2-injection experience in the Bati-Raman Field may
lead to a proposal of EOR/Sequestration CO2 network in the Middle East. — SPE Economics &
Management, 4: 42-50. https://doi.org/10.2118/139616-PA.

Sahin, S., Kalfa, U., Celebioglu, D., Duygu, E. & Lahna, H. (2012): A quarter century of progress in the
application of CO2 immiscible EOR project in Bati Raman Heavy Oil Field in Turkey. — SPE Heavy
Oil Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, SPE 157865. https://doi.org/10.2118/157865-MS

Sanna, A., Uibu, M., Caramanna, G., Kuusik, R. & Maroto-Valer, M.M. (2014): A review of mineral
carbonation technologies to sequester CO2. — Chemical Society Reviews, 43(23): 8049-8080.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CS00035H

Scharf, C. & Clemens, T. (2006): CO2 sequestration potential in Austrian oil and gas fields. — SPE
Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria; available at
https://doi.org/10.2118/100176-MS

Schlumberger (2007): Eclipse 100 reference manual. — Schlumberger Information Solutions; available
at https://www.software.slb.com/products/eclipse

Scholtz, P., Falus, G., Georgiev, G., Saftić, B., Goricnik, B., Hladik, V., Larsen, M., Peter Christensen, N.P.,
Bentham, M., Smith, N., Wojcicki, A., Sava, C.S., Kotulova, J., Kucharic, L. & Car, M. (2006):
Integration of CO2 emission and geological storage data from Eastern Europe - CASTOR WP 1.2.
— In: NTNU - SINTEF: Book of abstracts, Posters, 8th International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8), Trondheim, Norway, p. 1-6.
Schumann, D., Duetschke, E. & Pietzner, K. (2014): Public perception of CO2 offshore storage in
Germany: regional differences and determinants. — Energy Procedia, 63: 7096-7112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.744

Seixas, J., Fortes, P., Dias, L., Carneiro, J., Boavida, D., Aguiar, R., Marques, F., Fernandes, V., Helseth, J.,
Ciesielska, J. & Whiriskey, K. (2015): CO2 capture and storage in Portugal: a bridge to a low
carbon economy. — FCT-UNL, Lisbon, Portugal, 42 p.; available at
http://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/handle/10174/17077

Shogenov, K. (2015): Petrophysical models of the CO2 plume at prospective storage sites in the Baltic
Basin. — PhD Thesis, Tallinn University of Technology, TUT Press. http://digi.lib.ttu.ee/i/?2520

85
Shogenov, K. & Shogenova, A. (2021): Innovative synergy CCUS and renewable energy project offshore
Baltic using CO2 emissions from the cement industry. — Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-15), Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., Abstract 3812387;
available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3812387

Shogenov, K. & Shogenova, A. (2019): Cost-competitive and self-supporting geothermal energy, CO2-
EOR and CO2 storage concept: case study of E6 structure in the Baltic Sea. — Proceedings 14th
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-14), 1-8; available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3366151

Shogenov, K. & Shogenova, A. (2017): New economic concept of synergy of CO2 geological storage and
enhanced oil recovery in E6 structure offshore Latvia. — 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition,
Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201700761
Shogenov, K., Forlin, E. & Shogenova, A. (2017a): 3D geological and petrophysical numerical models of
E6 structure for CO2 storage in the Baltic Sea. — Energy Procedia, 114: 3564-3571.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1486

Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A., Forlin, E. & Gei, D. (2017b): Synergy of CO2 storage and oil recovery in
different geological formations: case study in the Baltic Sea. — Energy Procedia, 114: 7047-
7054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1846.

Shogenov, K., Gei, D., Forlin, E. & Shogenova, A. (2016): Petrophysical and Numerical Seismic Modelling
of CO2 Geological Storage in the E6 structure, Baltic Sea, Offshore Latvia. — Petroleum
Geoscience, 22: 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2015-017

Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A., Vizika-Kavvadias, O. & Nauroy, J. F. (2015a): Reservoir quality and
petrophysical properties of Cambrian sandstones and their changes during the experimental
modelling of CO2 storage in the Baltic Basin. — Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences, 64: 199-217.
https://doi.org/10.3176/earth.2015.27.

Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A., Vizika-Kavvadias, O. & Nauroy, J.-F. (2015b): Experimental modeling of
CO2-fluid-rock interaction: The evolution of the composition and properties of host rocks in the
Baltic Region. — Earth and Space Science, 2: 262-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000105

Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A. & Vizika-Kavvadias, O. (2013a): Petrophysical properties and capacity of
prospective for CO2 geological storage Baltic offshore and onshore structures. — Energy
Procedia, Elsevier, 5036-5045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.417.

Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A., & Vizika-Kavvadias, O. (2013b): Potential structures for CO2 geological
storage in the Baltic Sea: case study offshore Latvia. — Bulletin of the Geological Society of
Finland, 85(1): 65-81. https://doi.org/10.17741/bgsf/85.1.005
Shogenova, A. & Shogenov, K. (2018): Definition of a methodology for the development of a techno-
economic study for CO2 transport, storage and utilization. — Deliverable D7.1, Horizon 2020
project CLEANKER N 764816, 56 p.

Shogenova, A. & Shogenov, K. (2017): Integrated Use of Subsurface and CO2 for Enhanced Recovery of
Resources - Way to Sustainable Development and Synergy with Renewable Energy. — 79th EAGE
Conference and Exhibition, Paris, France; We P4 01. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-
4609.201701375

86
Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Uibu, M., Kuusik, R., Simmer, K. & Canonico, F. (2021a): Techno-economic
modelling of the Baltic CCUS onshore scenario for the cement industry supported by CLEANKER
project. — Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT15),
Abu Dhabi, UAE. Abstract 3817710; available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3817710

Shogenova, A., Nordback, N., Sopher, D., Shogenov, K., Niemi, A. Juhlin, C., Sliaupa, S., Ivandic, M.,
Wojcicki, A., Ivask, J., Klimkowski, L. & Nagy, S. (2021b): Carbon Neutral Baltic Sea Region by
2050: Myth or Reality? — Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies
Conference (GHGT15), Abu Dhabi, UAE. Abstract 3817722; available at SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3817722

Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Ivask, J. (2018): Regional and national regulations, gaps and
recommendations for CCUS scenarios. — Deliverable 7.3, Horizon 2020 project CLEANKER
project N 764816, 72 p.

Shogenova, A., Piessens, K., Ivask, J., Shogenov, K., Martínez, R., Flornes, K.M., Poulsen, N.E., Wójcicki,
A., Sliaupa, S., Kucharičh, L., Dudu, A., Persoglia, S., Holloway, S. & Saftic, B. (2013): CCS Directive
transposition into national laws in Europe: progress and problems by the end of 2011. — Energy
Procedia, 37: 7723-7731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.718

Shogenova, A., Shogenov, K., Pomeranceva, R., Nulle, I., Neele, F. & Hendriks, C. (2011): Economic
modelling of the capture-transport-sink scenario of industrial CO2 emissions: the Estonian-
Latvian cross-border case study. — Energy Procedia, 4: 2385-2392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.131

Shogenova, A., Sliaupa, S., Vaher, R., Shogenov, K. & Pomeranceva, R. (2009a): The Baltic Basin:
structure, properties of reservoir rocks and capacity for geological storage of CO2. — Estonian
Journal of Earth Sciences, 58(4): 259-267. https://doi.org/10.3176/earth.2009.4.04

Shogenova, A., Sliaupa, S., Shogenov, K., Sliaupiene, R., Pomeranceva, R., Vaher, R., Uibu, M. & Kuusik,
R. (2009b): Possibilities for geological storage and mineral trapping of industrial CO2 emissions
in the Baltic region. — Energy Procedia, 1: 2753-2760.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.046.

Shogenova, A., Uibu, M., Gastaldi, D., Shogenov, K., Canonico, F., Trikkel, A., Kuusik, R., Ivask, J., Cinti, G.
& Simmer, K. (2019): Transport, utilization and storage of CO2 emissions produced by cement
industry: CCUS study of the CLEANKER project. — Proceedings 14th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-14); available at SSRN:
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3378578

Shuppers, J.D., Holloway, S., May, F., Gerling, P., Bøe, R., Magnus, C., Riis, F., Osmundsen, P.T., Larsen,
M., Andersen, P.R. & Hatzyannis, G. (2003): Storage capacity and quality of hydrocarbon
structures in the North Sea and the Aegean region. — TNO-report NITG 02-020-B, 54 p.

Sigfússon, B., Gíslason, S.R., Matter, J.M., Stute, M., Gunnlaugsson, E., Gunnarsson, I., Aradóttir, E.S.,
Sigurdardóttir, H., Mesfin K.G., Alfredsson, H.A., Wolff-Boenisch, D., Arnarson, M.T. & Oelkers,
E.H. (2015): Solving the carbon-dioxide buoyancy challenge: The design and field testing of a
dissolved CO2 injection system. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 37: 213-
219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.02.022

87
Sigfússon, B., Arnarson, M.Þ., Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Karlsdóttir, M.R., Aradóttir, E.S. & Gunnarsson, I.
(2018): Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide at Hellisheidi power plant
in 2014-2017 and the role of Carbfix in achieving the 2040 Iceland climate goals. — Energy
Procedia, 146: 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.018

Simmer, K. (2018): Estonian-Latvian transboundary carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage
(CCS) scenario for the cement industry. — Master Thesis, Tallinn University of Technology, 48 p.;
available at https://digi.lib.ttu.ee/i/?10547&

Skoula, I. (2017): Climate Action Plan Part Α: Mitigating Climate Change: Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in the City of Athens. — C40 Cities, Report for Athens Municipality, 104 p.

Šliaupa, S., Lojka, R., Tasáryová, Z., Kolejka, V., Hladík, V., Kotulová, J., Kucharič, L., Fejdi, V., Wojcicki,
A., Tarkowski, R., Uliasz-Misiak, B., Šliaupienė, R., Nulle, I., Pomeranceva, R., Ivanova, O.,
Shogenova, A. & Shogenov, K. (2013): CO2 storage potential of sedimentary basins of Slovakia,
the Czech Republic, Poland, and Baltic States. — Geological Quarterly, 57(2): 219-232.
https://doi.org/10.7306/gq.1088

Šliaupienė, R. (2014): Prospects of CO2 geological storage in the Baltic Sedimentary Basin. — PhD
Thesis, University of Vilnius, Nature Research Centre, Institute of Geology and Geography;
summary available at https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:2176185

Šliaupienė, R. & Sliaupa, S. (2012): Risk factors of CO2 geological storage in the Baltic sedimentary
basin. — Geologija, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.6001/geologija.v54i3.2517

Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Sigfússon, B., Marieni, C., Goldberg, D., Gíslason, S.R. & Oelkers, E.H. (2020):
Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation. — Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1:
90-102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8

Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó, Oelkers, E.H., Mesfin, K., Aradóttir, E.S., Dideriksen, K., Gunnarsson, I.,
Gunnlaugsson, E., Matter, J.M., Stute, M. & Gíslason, S.R. (2017): The chemistry and saturation
states of subsurface fluids during the in situ mineralisation of CO2 and H2S at the CarbFix site
in SW-Iceland. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 58: 87-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.01.007

Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó., Wiese, F., Fridriksson, T., Ármannsson, H., Einarsson, G.M. & Gíslason, S.R.
(2014): CO2 storage potential of basaltic rocks in Iceland and the oceanic ridges. — Energy
Procedia, 63: 4585-4600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.491

Stockmann, G., Wolff-Boenisch, D., Gíslason, S.R. & Oelkers, E.H. (2008): Dissolution of diopside and
basaltic glass: the effect of carbonate coating. — Mineralogical Magazine, 72: 135-139.
https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2008.072.1.135

Suárez Díaz, I. & Arenillas González, A. (2014): Atlas de Estructuras del subsuelo susceptibles de
almacenamiento de CO2 en España. — Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, IGME. ISBN: 978-
84-7840-935-8.

SEI – Sustainable Energy Ireland/ EPA – Environmental Protection Agency (2008): Assessment of the
potential for geological storage of carbon dioxide for the island of Ireland. — Report, 137 p.;
available at https://www.seai.ie/publications/Assessment-of-the-Potential-for-Geological-
Storage-of-CO2-for-the-Island-of-Ireland.pdf

88
Sutter, D., Werner, M., Zappone, A. & Mazzotti, M. (2013): Developing CCS into a realistic option in a
country's energy strategy. — Energy Procedia, 37: 6562-6570.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.588

Sylta, Ø. (2004): Hydrocarbon migration modelling and exploration risk. — Doctoral thesis.
Doktoravhandlinger ved NTNU, Trondheim, 200 p.; available at
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/235827

Szabó, Zs., Gál, N.E., Kun, É., Szőcs, T. & Falus, G. (2018): Accessing effects and signals of leakage from
a CO2 reservoir to a shallow freshwater aquifer by reactive transport modelling. — Environmental
Earth Sciences, 77: 460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7637-6
Szabó, Zs., Hellevang, H., Király, Cs., Sendula, E., Kónya, P., Falus, G., Török, Sz. & Szabó Cs. (2016):
Experimental-modelling geochemical study of potential CCS caprocks in brine and CO2-
saturated brine. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 44: 262-275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.11.027

Szabó-Krausz, Z., Gál, N.E., Gável, V. & Falus, G. (2020): Wellbore cement alteration during decades of
abandonment and following CO2 attack – A geochemical modelling study in the area of potential
CO2 reservoirs in the Pannonian Basin. — Applied Geochemistry, 113: 104516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2019.104516

Szelényi, J. (2015): EOR-IOR applications in MOL’s practice. — Presentation slides; available at

https://www.ppepca.com/documents/presentation/MOL-1.pdf (last accessed: September 27th
2021)

Tasianas, A. & Koukouzas, N. (2016): CO2 storage capacity estimate in the lithology of the Mesohellenic
Trough, Greece. — Energy Procedia, 86: 334-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.01.034

Thomassen, J. (2019): Fortum’s CCUS initiatives in the Baltic Sea Region. — Oral presentation, Baltic
Carbon Forum 2019, Tallinn; available at http://bcforum.net/presentations2019/02-05-Fortums-
Initiatives-in-the-Baltic-Sea-Region.pdf

Tomić, B., Sušić, A., Katanić, M. & Nuhanović, S. (2007): Ležište kamene soli Tetima skladište tekućih i
plinovitih ugljikovodika – sažetak istraživačke studije. — Zbornik radova RGGF-a Univerziteta u
Tuzli, broj 33, str. 89.-97., Tuzla.

Uibu, M. & Kuusik, R. (2014): Main physicochemical factors affecting the aqueous carbonation of oil
shale ash. — Minerals Engineering, 59: 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.10.013
US DOE – US Department of Energy (2008): Methodology for development of geological storage
estimates for carbon dioxide. — Report, p. 1-37.

Usta, M.C. (2019): Experimental study of CO2 mineralization in burnt oil shale and cement bypass dust
based systems. — Master Thesis; Tallinn University of Technology School of Engineering,
Department of Materials and Environmental Technology; available at
https://digikogu.taltech.ee/en/Download/5a840120-7671-4c3a-9c3d-506179157c87

Van Bergen, F., Pagnier, H., & Krzystolik, P. (2006): Field experiment of enhanced coalbed methane-CO2
in the upper Silesian basin of Poland. — Environmental Geosciences, 13, 201-224.
https://doi.org/10.1306/eg.02130605018

89
Vandeweijer, V., Hofstee, C. & Graven, H. (2018): 13 Years of Safe CO2 Injection at K12-B. — Proceedings
5th CO2 Geological Storage Workshop, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers,
Utrecht, Netherlands; available at https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802995.

Vangkilde-Pedersen, T. (ed.) (2009): Storage capacity. — EU GeoCapacity Report D16, 166 p.;
available at http://www.geology.cz/geocapacity/publications/
D16%20WP2%20Report%20storage%20capacity-red.pdf

Vangkilde-Pedersen, T., Lyng- Anthonsen, K., Smith, N., Kirk, K., Neele, F., Meerc, B., Le Gallo, Y., Bossie-
Codreanu, D., Wojcicki, A., Le Nindre, Y., Hendriks, C., Dalhoff, F., & Christensen, N.P. (2009a):
Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide-the EU GeoCapacity
project. — Energy Procedia, 1: 2663-2670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.034

Vangkilde-Pedersen, T., Vosgerau, H.J., Willscher, B., Neele, F., Van der Meer, B., Bossie-Codreanu, D.,
Wojcicki, A., Le Nindre, Y.-M., Kirk, K. & Anthonsen, K.L. (2009b): Capacity standards and site
selection criteria. — EU GeoCapacity report D26: 45 p.; available at
http://www.geology.cz/geocapacity/publications/D26%20WP4%20Report%20standards%20a
nd%20site%20selection%20criteria-red.pdf

Vatalis, K., Charalampides, G. & Platias, S. (2014): CCS ready innovative technologies in coal-fired power
plants as an effective tool for a Greek low carbon energy policy. — Procedia Economics and
Finance, 14: 634-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00752-7

Veetil, S.K. & Hitch, M. (2020): Recent development and challenges of aqueous mineral carbonation: A
review. — International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 17(10): 4359-4380.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02776-z

Vercelli, S., Pirrotta, S., Maynard, C., Shackley, S., Modesti, F., Beaubien, S.E., Bigi, S. & Lombardi, S.
(2015): The geological storage of CO2: and what do you think? – Findings from the ECO2 project
about the public perception of CO2 geological storage. — Lay report ECO2 project report D6.4,
24 p.; available at https://doi.org/10.3289/ECO2_D6.4

Vold, S. (2020): CCS legislation in Norway: The EU CCS Directive and its implementation into Norwegian
Law. — In: M. Roggenkamp & C. Banet (eds.); European Energy Law Report XIII (p. 369-386).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780689487.020.

Von Borgstede, C., Andersson, M., & Johnsson, F. (2013): Public attitudes to climate change and carbon
mitigation—Implications for energy-associated behaviours. — Energy Policy, 57, 182-193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.051

Vulin, D., Muhasilović, L. & Arnaut, M. (2020): Possibilities for CCUS in medium temperature geothermal
reservoir. — Energy, 200(2):117549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117549
Vulin, D., Saftić, B. & Macenić, M. (2018): Estimate of dynamic change of fluid saturation during CO2
injection - Case study of a regional aquifer in Croatia. — Interpretation, 6(1): SB51-SB64.
https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2017-0077.1

Wallquist, L. & Werner, M. (2009): Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage - CCS (Studie zum
Entwicklungsstand von CCS in der Schweiz). — IED Working Paper 4, ETH Zürich, 49 p.; available
at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1430346

90
Wang, X., Ni, W., Li, J., Zhang, S., Hitch, M. & Pascual, R. (2019): Carbonation of steel slag and gypsum
for building materials and associated reaction mechanisms. — Cement and Concrete Research,
125: 105893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105893

Weiss, M. & Lutyński, M. (2017): Społeczne aspekty związane z komercyjnym składowaniem dwutlenku
węgla w Polsce/Social aspects related to commercial carbon dioxide storage in Poland. —
Bezpieczeństwo Pracy i Ochrona Środowiska w Górnictwie, 8: 28-31 (in Polish).

Weiss, M. & Lutyński, M. (2018): Badania świadomości społecznej na temat geologicznego

składowania CO2 w Polsce /Awareness of Polish society on carbon injection (own research). —
Bezpieczeństwo Pracy i Ochrona Środowiska w Górnictwie, 5: 3-10 (in Polish).
Welkenhuysen, K. (2017): Integration of geoscientific data and uncertainties in techno-economic
forecasting on CO2 capture and storage. — Doctoral thesis, KU Leuven, 212 p.; available at
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1930724?limo=0

Welkenhuysen, K., Ramírez, A., Swennen, R. & Piessens, K. (2013): Strategy for ranking potential CO2
storage reservoirs: A case study for Belgium. — International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control, 17: 431-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJGGC.2013.05.025

Whitmarsh, L., Xenias, D. & Jones, C. (2019): Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and
storage. — Palgrave Communications, 5(17). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0217-x

Wiese, F., Fridriksson, T. & Ármannsson, H. (2008): CO2 fixation by calcite in high-temperature
geothermal systems in Iceland. — Report ISOR−2008/003, Iceland Geosurvey, Reykjavík, 70 p.

Wójcicki, A. (2008): CO2 storage potential in Poland. — Proceedings of 1st EAGE CO2 Geological Storage
Workshop; available at Earth Doc. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20146158

Wójcicki, A., Nagy, S., Lubaś, J., Chećko, J. & Tarkowski, R. (eds.) (2014): Assessment of formations
and structures suitable for safe CO2 geological storage (in Poland) including the monitoring
plans (Summary). — Report ordered by (Polish) Ministry of Environment, 165 p.

Wróblewska, E. (2014): CCS - status of R&D and demonstration activities in Poland. — CSLF Meeting,
Warsaw, Poland; available at
https://www.cslforum.org/cslf/sites/default/files/documents/warsaw2014/Wroblewska-
CCSPoland-TG-Warsaw1014.pdf

Yörük, C. R., Uibu, M., Usta, M. C., Kaljuvee & T., Trikkel, A. (2020): CO2 mineralization by burnt oil shale
and cement bypass dust: effect of operating temperature and pre-treatment. — Journal of
Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 142: 991-999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-09349-9

Yücetaş, İ., Ergiçay, N. & Akın, S. (2018): Carbon dioxide injection field pilot in Umurlu Geothermal Field,
Turkey. — GRC Transactions, 42: 2285-2291.

Zelilidis, A., Piper, D.J.W. & Kontopoulos, N. (2002): Sedimentation and basin evolution of the Oligocene-
Miocene Mesohellenic basin, Greece. — AAPG, 86: 161-182.
https://doi.org/10.1306/61EEDA6C-173E-11D7-8645000102C1865D

91
ANNEX
This Annex contains specific information on the state-of-play on CO2 geological storage in 32
European countries provided by CO2GeoNet members and contributors from countries
outside the Association as responses to a questionnaire survey. Respondents were asked to
answer questions on the following topics:
1) national storage options, potential and capacity;
2) large-scale and demonstration CCS projects, pilot and test sites for CO2 capture, injection
and storage;
3) national policies and climate-protection strategies, national legislation and regulations;
4) research activities with respect to CO2 storage;
5) national actors driving CCS forward, public awareness and engagement.

The information contained in this Annex is as recent as of 30th June 2021.

Country-specific information was provided by the authors listed in the following:

Austria* Jakob Kulich (Geologische Bundesanstalt, GBA)

Belgium* Kris Welkenhuysen (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences - Geological
Survey of Belgium, RBINS-GSB)
Bosnia and Sanel Nuhanovič (University of Tuzla)
Herzegovina
Bulgaria Georgi Georgiev (Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”)
Croatia* Bruno Saftić (University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum
Engineering, UNIZG-RGNF)
Cyprus Paul Christodoulides (Cyprus University of Technology)
Czech Republic* Vít Hladík (Czech Geological Survey, CGS)
Denmark* Karen Lyng Anthonsen, Carsten M. Nielsen (Geological Survey of Denmark
and Greenland, GEUS)
Estonia* Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Geology,
TalTech-DG)
Finland Antti Arasto (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd), Alla Shogenova
(Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Geology, TalTech-DG)
France* Isabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol, Rowena Stead (Bureau de Recherches
Géologiques et Minières, BRGM), Florence Delprat-Jannaud (IFP Energies
nouvelles, IFPEN)
Germany* Heike Rütters, Stefan Knopf, Franz May (Bundesanstalt für
Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, BGR); Cornelia Schmidt-Hattenberger
(Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ)
Continued on next page

92
Greece* Nikolaos Koukouzas, Petros Koutsovitis, Pavlos Tyrologou, Christos Karkalis,
Eleonora Manoukian (Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, CERTH)
Hungary* Gyorgy Falus (Mining and Geological Survey of Hungary, MBFSZ)
Iceland Sandra Snæbjörnsdóttir, Kári Helgason (Carbfix)
Ireland Brian McConnell (Geological Survey Ireland)
Italy* Federica Donda, Barbara Merson, Sergio Persoglia, Michela Vellico, Valentina
Volpi (Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale, OGS),
Samuela Vercelli, Sabina Bigi (Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, URS)
Latvia Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Geology,
TalTech-DG)
Lithuania Alla Shogenova (Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Geology,
TalTech-DG)
The Netherlands* Suzanne Hurter (TNO — Netherlands Organisation for Applied Science)
Norway* Jan Tveranger, Walter H. Wheeler (NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS)
Poland* Aleksandra Koteras (Central Mining Institute, GIG)
Portugal* Júlio Carneiro, Pedro Miguel Martins Pereira (Universidade de Évora, ICT)
Romania* Constantin Sava (Institutul National De Cercetare-Dezvoltare Pentru Geologie
Si Geoecologie Marina, GeoEcoMar)
Slovak Republic Michal Jankulár (State Geological Institute of Dionyz Stur)
Slovenia* Marjeta Car (Geoinzeniring, druzba za geoloski inzeniring d.o.o., GEO-INZ)
Spain* Paula Fernández-Canteli Álvarez (Instituto Geológico y Minero de España,
IGME)
Sweden Gry Møl Mortensen, Daniel Sopher, Anna Åberg, Jesper Blomberg (Geological
Survey of Sweden); Jan Kjærstad, Filip Johnsson (Chalmers University of
Technology)
Switzerland Nicole Lupi (Swiss Federal Office of Energy)
Turkey* Çağlar Sınayuç (Middle East Technical University - Petroleum Research
Centre, METU-PAL)
Ukraine Oleksandr Ponomarenko (Division of Earth Sciences of the National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine), Yuliia Demchuk (Public Organisation
“Ukrainian Association of Geologists”)
United Kingdom* Ceri Vincent (British Geological Survey, BGS), Gillian E. Pickup (The Institute
of GeoEnergy Engineering at Heriot Watt University, HWU)

*: Country represented in the CO2GeoNet Association and covered by member(s).

Note that the references cited in the Annex are included in the overall reference list.

93
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in AUSTRIA (AT; as of 30th June 2021)
AT1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and
capacity
Since the State of Play report on geological CO2 storage in 2013 (Rütters et al. 2013), no major
changes occurred, neither in the Austrian storage assessment nor the estimated CO2 storage
capacities. Potential CO2 storage sites in Austria have been presented at the 68th SPE Annual
conference in Vienna (Scharf & Clemens 2006) and only focused on hydrocarbon fields. All
mentioned storage sites are located in the Vienna Basin or the Molasse Basin. The storage
capacities were estimated by simple assumptions and lead to a cumulative capacity of 465 Mt
CO2. This number does not account for economic feasibility and hence actual storage
volumes will be smaller.

Recent results from the ENOS project led to an estimated storage potential of 121 Mt CO2 in
the biggest oil reservoirs of the Austrian Vienna Basin. This study focused on combined CCS
with CO2-EOR and used production data, initial oil in place and some additional reservoir
parameters for the storage evaluation.

So far, no research has been performed on CO2 storage in saline aquifers or salt domes. There
is no national CO2 storage atlas available for Austria. The main reason for the rather limited
progress in storage assessment is a Federal Law that entered into force in 2011 and bans
both, the underground CO2 storage as well as the exploration for geological CO2 storage sites.

AT2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
AT2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Capture on…

...biomass power plants: “ViennaGreenCO2” project, CO2 post-combustion capture with solid
sorbents, capture volume of 0.7 t/day (in operation until 2019).

…cement plants: In June 2020, the Lafarge cement plant in Mannersdorf co-signed a
memorandum of understanding for a full-scale CCU project and presented its plan to capture
almost 100% of its CO2 emission by 2030, (700,000 t CO2 per year). No further details are
currently known.

94
AT2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

AT2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
Castor Project (2004–2008): The Atzbach-Schwanenstadt gas field was considered to be
transformed into a CO2 storage. Suitable CO2 sources were evaluated and the distribution of
the injected CO2 was calculated in a reservoir model.

AT2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

AT2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Lafarge Zementwerke, Verbund, OMV and Borealis signed a memorandum of understanding
in June 2020. The aim of the “Carbon2ProductAustria” (C2PAT) project is to develop a full-
scale CCU plant with CO2 capture in Austria’s biggest cement plant (Lafarge cement plant in
Mannersdorf). Austria’s biggest electricity provider (Verbund) will create green hydrogen that
will be used, together with the CO2, to create synthetic fuels, plastics and chemicals (OMV and
Borealis). The plant should be finished by 2030. No further details are currently known.

AT3. National policies, legislation and regulations

AT3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
In May 2018, Austria presented a climate and energy strategy up to 2030. It comprises 12
flagship projects that should represent a first step towards meeting the country’s climate
obligations:

1. Efficient goods transport logistics

2. Strengthening public rail transport
3. E-mobility plan
4. Thermal renovation of buildings
5. Renewable heating
6. 100,000 rooftops solar panel and small-scale storage programme

95
 7. Renewable hydrogen and biomethane
8. Green finance
9. Energy research initiative 1 – Energy systems of the future
10. Energy research initiative 2 – “Mission innovation Austria” programme
11. Communication – education and awareness-raising for a sustainable future
12. Bio-Economy strategy

It is not mentioned how much emissions are expected to be saved by the individual projects.
The potential role of CCS was also not mentioned.

In December 2019, Austria presented its long-term strategy on how to reach its climate goals
up to 2050, following up to EU regulation 2018/1999). The strategy comprises several future
scenarios, where CCS and CCU play an important role to meet Austria’s climate obligations.
Additionally, the possibility was mentioned to transport the captured CO2 into a different
country and store it in e.g. large-scale offshore storage sites. The NECP for the period 2021–
2030 does not mention CCS.

AT3.2 National legislation and regulations

3 years after implementation of the EU CCS Directive (2009/31/EC) Austria has made use of
its right to ban CO2 storage according to article 4 §1. Since then, as stated by Federal Law Act
No 144/2011 §2, the underground storage of CO2 as well as the exploration for geological CO2
storage sites are forbidden throughout the country. The only exceptions are research projects
with a maximum storage capacity of 100,000 tonnes CO2 and the exploration of storage sites
for development or testing of new products or processes. This prohibition needs to be
revaluated every 5 years. The last evaluation was in 2018 where the continuation of the
prohibition was decided.

In general, landowners in Austria have a claim on the property down to the earth’s centre.
However, hydrocarbons and geological structures bearing hydrocarbons are deemed as
national resources in Austria, meaning they are exclusive property of Austria regardless of any
claims. The responsible governmental body is the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Regions and
Tourism and its “Montanbehörde” is the competent mining authority.

AT4. Research
AT4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Research related to CO2 capture, transport and storage is funded in Austria by Klima- und
Energiefonds.

96
There is no exclusive research programme for CCS. Nevertheless, the following research
programmes addressed/address CO2 capture and usage:

- Energieforschung (e!MISSION),
- Energieforschungsprogramm.

AT4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

CCS was hardly a research topic during the last couple of years. Austria is rather focusing on
mitigation of CO2 emissions and CCU projects. All major CCS research projects took place
before the ban in 2011. Examples for CCS research institutions are:

- Geologische Bundesanstalt, GBA

- Montanuniversität Leoben, Chair of Reservoir Engineering

AT4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

AT4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
GBA is currently involved in the following EU-funded research projects addressing aspects
relevant to CCS: Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe (ENOS).

AT5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

AT5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
To our knowledge, there has been no exclusive study about the public awareness of CCS
technology in Austria. Before introducing the legal ban of CO2 storage, the public opinion on
CCS was very critical. However, since then topics linked to CCS have disappeared from the
public discourse and lost the interest of journalists. The raised public awareness concerning
the climate crisis might lead to a turn of public perception and to an, at least, slightly higher
public acceptance.

97
AT5.2 National advocates for CCS
None.

AT5.3 Public engagement

None.

98
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in BELGIUM (BE; as of 30th June 2021)

BE1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Although there is no true CO2 storage atlas available for Belgium, capacity assessments on
national and reservoir level have been made. A first national capacity assessment has been
performed by the RBINS-GSB (Geological Survey of Belgium), starting in the GESTCO project
(Christensen & Holloway 2004). Laenen et al. (2004) also published an overview of the storage
options in the north-eastern Campine Basin and Roer Valley Graben. Baele et al. (2007) and
Dupont & Baele (2009) have investigated the storage potential in coal sequences in the
Walloon Region. Piessens & Dusar (2004) have looked into the storage of CO2 in abandoned
coal mines.

During the national PSS-CCS projects (2005–2011), funded by the Belgian Science Policy
Office, a more detailed national assessment was made, adding uncertainties (Piessens et al.
2012). The capacity assessments were combined with a techno-economic assessment to
quantify the effect of uncertainties on theoretical, practical and matched capacity numbers.
These assessments were updated and published in a partly internally funded PhD research
project at the RBINS-GSB (Welkenhuysen et al. 2013). These numbers were reported and
compiled with other EU data in the EU FP7 CO2StoP project (Poulsen et al. 2014).

Because of a historical lack of commercial interest in the deep subsurface in Belgium,

potential storage targets, caprocks, their properties and capacities have large uncertainties.
At the time of writing, no exploration licences or storage permits for CO2 have been filed or
granted. Potential storage capacity in the northern Flemish region is situated in the north-
eastern Campine Basin, with saline aquifer targets from Upper Cretaceous to Devonian age.
Additionally, storage could be possible in Carboniferous coal sequences and abandoned
mines. In the southern Walloon Region, potential storage options are mainly located in an east-
west band stretching from the cities of Liège to Mons, with saline aquifer targets from Lower
Carboniferous to Devonian age. Storage could also be possible in Carboniferous coal
sequences and abandoned mines. There is no (historical) hydrocarbon production, thus no
storage potential in depleted hydrocarbon fields.

The theoretical total CO2 storage capacity of Belgium is assessed to be around 1 Gt

(1,000 Mt). A more realistic simulation provides an average practical capacity of 620 Mt, and
a matched capacity of 109 Mt based on techno-economic source-sink matching. These
numbers represent averages, with uncertainty ranges that span about one order of magnitude
(Welkenhuysen et al. 2013).

99
BE2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
BE2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Capture on cement: LEILAC project at the HeidelbergCement cement plant in Lixhe, Belgium.
This EU H2020 funded pilot project (2016–2020) uses a direct separation process, developed
by Calix, to capture process emissions from the calciner. The pilot plant was installed
successfully, is operational and has a capacity to capture about 25 kt CO2/year.

Direct air capture: At the deep geothermal plant site of Balmatt in Mol, owned by VITO, a pilot
project started in 2018 to install a direct air capture installation on the air-cooling units of the
geothermal plant.

BE2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BE2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BE2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BE2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The development of a CCS network in Belgium, connecting to neighbouring countries, was
studied and simulated in the PSS-CCS projects (Piessens et al. 2012).

100
In the Port of Antwerp, several companies have signed an agreement to investigate the
feasibility of CCUS. In 2020, a PCI (Project of Common Interest) has been approved by the EC
(CO2TransPorts) to investigate connecting the Ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp and the North
Sea Port (Ghent, Terneuzen, Borsele, Vlissingen). This project includes cross-border transport
with a connection to the PORTHOS project in Rotterdam. Regarding the timeline, the port
connections are planned by 2026 for amounts up to 10 Mt CO2/year. Upscaling is planned
after 2030.

BE3. National policies, legislation and regulations

BE3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Belgium is a federal state, and the competences on energy and climate are distributed over
the federal and regional level. At regional level, the Flemish government approved their energy
and climate plan 2021–2030 on 18/12/2018. The Walloon government approved their air-
climate-energy plan 2021–2030 on 04/04/2019. The Brussels government is working towards
an air-climate-energy plan for 2030, planned for 2023. In their 2019–2024 policy statement
the Brussels government announced a goal of 40% GHG emission reduction by 2030.

Combining the regional efforts, a national energy and climate plan 2021–2030 was approved
on 18/12/2019, with a commitment for the whole of Belgium of 35% GHG emission reduction
compared to 2005 for the non-ETS sectors.

Policy strategies and measures are mainly targeted towards an increase in renewables (17.5%
in 2030, mainly wind and bioenergy), energy efficiency (-15% of primary consumption in 2030)
and a circular economy. Additionally, a nuclear phase-out is scheduled by 2025, for a total
capacity of 6 GW. Hydrogen is recognised as an essential element in the energy transition.

Belgium forms an important fuel and chemistry cluster in Europe, thus the potential for CO2
capture and use is recognised. CO2 storage is only mentioned as an option abroad. The R&D
programme “Moonshot Vlaanderen CO2 neutraal” provides support for CCS networks and CCU
installations in Flanders, but currently only supports one capture project and no storage.

BE3.2 National legislation and regulations

Belgium is a federal state, and CO2 storage is a competence of the regional authorities.

In both the Brussels Region and the North Sea area (the latter is governed by the federal
government) storage is evaluated to be infeasible due to geological conditions. Hence, here,
the CCS Directive was not transposed into regional/national legislation and storage is de facto
prohibited.

101
In the Flemish Region, the EU CCS Directive was transposed into the decree of 08/05/2009 on
the deep subsurface, which went into effect on 15/07/2011. This decree regulates activities
below the level of -500 m, and received minor updates over the following years. There are no
a priori restrictions on geological storage of CO2, and a procedure for exploration and
exploitation licences is available. Next to an exploration/storage permit, an environmental
permit is needed.

In the Walloon Region, the EU CCS Directive was transposed into a regional decree M.B.
03/09/2013. This decree was revised in 2019 with updated environmental regulations which
will become applicable in 2021. There are no a priori restrictions on geological storage of CO2,
and a procedure for exploration and exploitation licences is available. Next to an
exploration/storage permit, an environmental permit is needed.

BE4. Research
BE4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Since the PSS-CCS projects (2005–2011), funded by the Belgian Science Policy Office, ended
there is and has been no research programme in Belgium specifically targeting or funding CO2
storage. The RBINS-GSB has co-funded two project with own funds:

- PhD project (Welkenhuysen 2017): For Belgium, focussing on capacity assessment,

techno-economic source-sink matching, and network/infrastructure development.
- GeoConnect³d project: Project in the frame of the EU H2020 GeoERA. This project
focusses on compiling and presenting geological information through a structural
framework in a way that is accessible and usable to stakeholders. One research topic
is the interaction of subsurface activities, another are unusual geological expressions,
geomanifestations, for which the CO2-rich spring waters in Spa are monitored.

The Moonshot “Vlaanderen CO2 neutraal” funding programme partly targets CCS networks
and CCU installations in Flanders. The direct air capture project by VITO is related to the
CAPTIN project (Intensification of CO2 Capture Processes), funded by this programme.

102
Table BE: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on
CO2 storage. Storage capacity

Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex

impact

Social
Topic

Well
Addressed X X X - - - X X -
GeoConnect³d

GeoConnect³d

GeoConnect³d
examples
Project

PhD,
PhD

PhD
X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

BE4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

CO2 storage is a very uncommon research subject. A limited number of institutes are currently
involved in CO2 storage research, and are cooperating in this field.

- The RBINS-GSB is a member of CO2GeoNet and is regularly involved in CCS-related

research.
- At the Antwerp University, and more specifically the Environmental Economics
research group, CCS has been and still is a research subject for nearly 10 years.

Since 09/2020 there is a strong and structural cooperation between RBINS-GSB and Antwerp
University on this topic.

BE4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

Lixhe: pilot capture plant for process emissions at the HeidelbergCement plant in Lixhe, built
as part of the EU H2020 LEILAC project.

Spa: In the area of Spa, in the south-east of Belgium, naturally carbonated waters are coming
to the surface. Monitoring equipment and strategies are being developed by the Geological
Survey of Belgium.

103
BE4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
- Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe (ENOS)
- Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement 2 (LEILAC2)
- Cross-border, cross-thematic multiscale framework for combining geological models and
data for resource appraisal and policy support (GeoConnect³d)

BE5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

BE5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
General knowledge and awareness of CCS technologies is low in Belgium. There have been
no scientific surveys or published studies on public awareness. In 2013, VITO has conducted
a survey among a number of CCUS stakeholders, and generally CCU is preferred over CCS
(Laenen et al. 2013).

BE5.2 National advocates for CCS

RBINS-GSB, limited to scientific advice or reporting only.

BE5.3 Public engagement

As communication activities at the end of research projects, a number of interviews and press
releases have been made by the RBINS-GSB and Antwerp University. As there is low
awareness about the deep subsurface and CCS in particular, general interest and feedback
was low. The following public communications were made or contributed to:

- Online news item: Starckx, S. 2013. Toekomst CO2-opslag hangt aan een zijden
draadje. Argus Actueel, 13/05/2013.
- Online opinion: Piessens K. & Welkenhuysen K. 2013. De waagschaal van energie en
klimaat: beter in balans met steenkool. EOS wetenschap (online opiniestuk).
- Science magazine paper: Welkenhuysen, K. & Piessens, K. 2016. Het belang van
geologische opslag van CO2 voor België. Science Connection (Federaal
Wetenschapsbeleid), maart-april 2016, 50, “Het klimaatonderzoek in België”, 32-33.
- Radio interview: Welkenhuysen, K., 2017. 10 minute radio interview on CO2 storage in
Belgium. Radio 1, Nieuwe Feiten (12u-13u), 02/11/2017.

104
- Press release: Welkenhuysen, K. 2017. CO2-opslag in aardlagen kan tot twee derde
van industriële uitstoot neutraliseren. Belga, 26/10/2017. Published online by Het
Laatste Nieuws and De Morgen.
- Online news article: Schepens, W. 2018. We kunnen het klimaat manipuleren om de
opwarming van de aarde tegen te gaan: maar is dat wel verstandig? VRT Nieuws,
online persartikel op vrtnws.be, 08/07/2017
- Newspaper article: Martin, M., 2019. Is het klimaat geholpen met de opslag van CO2?
De Morgen, 07/05/2019, p. 9.
- Online news item: Martin, M., 2019. CO2 opslaan onder de Noordzee: een ambitieuze
zet in het klimaatverhaal? De Morgen, online persartikel op demorgen.be,
07/05/2019.

105
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (BA; as of 30th June 2021)

BA1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Primarily, potential areas for gas storage (including CO2) in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been
mapped within an internal case study (Tomić et al. 2007). That case study contains
nationwide thematic maps of 15 locations of Paleozoic and Mesozoic age assessed for their
potential suitability according to the criteria: lithology, geomechanical and technical
conditions, environment and safety, locations and investment. Some of these areas were
military facilities, some of them were insufficiently researched and some were in exploitation.
The case study showed that salt mine ”Tetima” (NE part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, near to
Tuzla) is the best location for gas (including CO2) storage in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This
location had 23/25 points according to the considered criteria. During the ESTMAP project
(2015–2016), this location was more precisely defined.

In the EU GeoCapacity project, CO2 storage capacities of Bosnia-Herzegovina were assessed

for the first time. It was concluded that Bosnia and Herzegovina lacks substantial geological
storage capacity due to a “predominance of carbonate sedimentary formations with a high
level of carstification and tectonic disturbance of their brittle layers” (Vangkilde-Pedersen
2009). Storage capacity in saline aquifers was estimated as 197 Mt CO2.

There is no national CO2 storage atlas available.

Today, there are about 30 empty salt caverns (filled by salt water) with capacity about
200,000 m3 per cavern. A total of 100 such caverns are expected. Their storage space as
estimated to be roughly 20-25 million m3.

There has not been any application for a CO2 storage exploration licence or storage permit
filed or granted.

All values given above represent volumetric capacities that do not consider any geotechnical
or socio-economic constraints that will reduce the volume of realistically usable storage
capacity.

Our City Government is against geological CO2 storage by their proclaimed politics but not by
law.

106
BA2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
BA2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None. There is an idea for CO2 capture from the coal power plant Tuzla but it is currently “on
hold”.

BA2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None. Connected with BA2.1.

BA2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None. There is an idea for demo/pilot project at salt mine “Tetima” but we are still waiting for
a suitable project and help from EU.

BA2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BA2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None. It can be realised through linking a coal power plant (capture) – transport – “Tetima”
(storage).

BA3. National policies, legislation and regulations

BA3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Back in 2013, Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Climate Change Adaptation and Low
Emission Development Strategy and ratified the Paris Agreement in March 2017. However,
our country has yet to begin implementing the Paris Agreement in a systematic manner.

107
Bosnia and Herzegovina is also committed under the Energy Community Treaty to achieving
a target of 40% renewable energy in its energy mix by 2020. However, the reform of the
renewable energy framework regarding net metering and development of incentive
mechanisms has yet to be conducted. It is crucial that both Entities, i.e. the Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, and the central government of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, find a compromise solution under the Energy Community rules in order to
implement the provisions of the Third Energy Package throughout the country.

Concerning emissions of greenhouse gases, Bosnia and Herzegovina has an opportunity to

set up a functional system in this regard and to integrate relevant parts of that system with
already established systems in the country, such as environmental permitting system in order
to utilise its limited resources. All EU Member States, regardless of the fact if they are Annex I
or non-Annex I countries to the Kyoto Protocol, are requested to participate in the EU Emission
Trading System. This also applies to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a non-Annex I country.
Bosnia and Herzegovina will need to transpose the EU legal instruments on greenhouse
gases. As concerns this document, the EU CCS Directive is included in the text of the most
important national planning document – Environmental Approximation Strategy of Bosnia and
Herzegovina from May 2017 on pages 70-71 and with some details about storage permits on
page 110, but no further documents regarding the transposition are available (see also BA3.2).

The most valuable progress related to CO2 emissions reduction has been achieved in the
public buildings sector - by actors such as the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic
Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MoFTER), the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s
environmental funds and spatial planning ministries as well as some cantonal ministries - by
growing implementation of the energy efficiency infrastructure measures from just a few
public sector buildings annually in 2014 and 2015 to retrofitting at least 50 public sector
buildings a year for the past three years and with the ambition to continue achieving the same
or a greater number.

The outcome of two projects will reduce CO2 emissions total for public sector buildings by
approximately 8%. Speaking about adaptation to climate change, the greatest progress in
Bosnia and Herzegovina is achieved at the municipal level. Several projects the UN
Development Programme implements directly support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s preparation
for the Energy Climate Plan 2020–2030. In practical terms this means increased energy
efficiency, greater usage of renewable energy and improvement of the energy and transport
infrastructure and services. The intention is to lead to international investment, job creation
and the growth of business in a resource efficient economy.

Primary targets are: (1) enforce the concept of low carbon urban development in cities across
the country; (2) increase the use of public transportation in urban areas and develop a national
e-transportation strategy; (3) increase the utilisation of renewable energy in district heating

108
systems across the country; (4) introduce a carbon tax for heavy polluting industries; (5)
continue to increase the country’s ability to prevent and respond to climate disasters.

Bosnia’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) has not been finalised yet.

BA3.2 National legislation and regulations

At the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no legislation transposing the EU legislation on
ambient air quality or air emissions have been adopted, because this sector falls under
exclusive competence of the administrative Entities. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, CO2 has not
been defined or regulated by legislation. Traditionally, CO2 has not been considered a
pollutant, nor is it listed among the pollutants in any of the legislation in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

There is currently no legislation setting out the proprietary rights of stored CO2. The existing
legal frameworks of the energy sector, geological exploration and mining, and environmental
protection may be a basis for introduction of a legal regime of CCS in the country (see also
Kulichenko & Ereira 2012). The legislation on production, transportation, distribution, and
storage of gas is perhaps the most likely to correspond to the requirements of CCS. The
legislation on geological exploration and mining is also pertinent, since the focus of Directive
2009/31/EC is geological storage of CO2.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the national legislation does not yet explicitly regulate
transportation of CO2 in pipelines. Also, there is no specific licensing system in place yet for
CCS projects. However, the existing permitting system from the gas sector might be
applicable. There is also no CCS legislation at present in Bosnia and Herzegovina on third
party access rights to transportation networks. The gas sector legislation vis-à-vis third party
access rights may be relevant.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, public participation is one of the principles of environmental

protection under the law of both administrative Entities that acceded to the Aarhus Convention
in 2008.

The “owner” of the subsurface in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the State (Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Entities and Cantons or Municipalities). Currently, there are no CCS sites and
facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The administrative Entities’ laws only regulate the gas
sectors within their own territories. Gas sector installations in Bosnia and Herzegovina are
public property and owned by the Entities.

109
BA4. Research
BA4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
We have no funding for any research related to CCS in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

BA4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

A first assessment of CCS opportunities including storage potential and capacities in Bosnia
and Herzegovina were performed within the EU GeoCapacity project. Also, the Faculty of
Mining, Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Tuzla, participated in the ESTMAP project
as a further attempt to activate the issue of use and storage CO2 through the project work.

BA4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

BA4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
None.

BA5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

BA5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
The public acceptance of CCS in Bosnia and Herzegovina is very low. Our State government
(not Entities’ governments) does some things to activate this theme and they are ready to help
other institutions (primarily universities, but also others) in everything but financial.

BA5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

110
BA5.3 Public engagement
The State government has raised the issue of CCS in line with Bosnia's desire to join the EU,
but in our country progress is very slow.

111
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in BULGARIA (BG; as of 30th June 2021)

BG1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
CO2 geological storage studies and capacity estimations in Bulgaria have been performed in
the frame of European projects: Castor WP-2 (2005), EU GeoCapacity (2006–2008), CGS
Europe (2011–2013) and CO2StoP (2012) as well as within two business projects supported
by Bulgarian Government (namely by Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism):

1. Project “Assess the Bulgarian capacity for storage of CO2” (2010), funded by EBRD and
accomplished by Worley Parsons Resources & Energy, INYPSA and Sofia University.

2. Project "CO2 Storage feasibility study in Bulgaria (Pavlikeni region)" (2011–2012), a

programme sponsored by Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organisation (NEDO). The feasibility study has been conducted by Toshiba Corporation with
support from other parties, including Schlumberger Carbon Services and Sofia University.

The Bulgarian CO2 storage capacity estimate is based on a large data base including mainly
original seismic and borehole results integrated with knowledge on the subsurface. It was
calculated in a unified way accepted in the frame of the EU GeoCapacity project.

The largest capacity of potential CO2 storage options in Bulgaria is related to saline aquifers
(2,560 Mt), coal fields have considerably less opportunities (27 Mt), while possibilities to use
depleted hydrocarbon fields are practically absent.

The CO2 storage capacity in deep saline aquifers in Bulgaria is based on the assessment of
10 sites. Six of the recognised aquifers are located in Northern Bulgaria, the other four in
Southern Bulgaria.

Most of unmined coal reserves in Bulgaria occur at shallow depths, not favourable for safe
injection of CO2. Deeper occurrence of coal-bearing formations (>800 m), potentially suitable
for CO2 storage, exists only in two fields, in which the total estimated CO2 storage capacity is
about 27 Mt.

The majority of discovered hydrocarbon fields in Bulgaria lie outside the depth interval for
effective CO2 storage, i.e. 800-2500 m. Only two gas fields (1 onshore and 1 offshore) have
productive reservoirs at favourable depths. However, the onshore field was converted into
sub-surface gas storage in 1974. Thus, only the gas field located offshore was considered for
CO2 storage. Assessment of this field suggests good opportunities for CO2 storage with a

112
capacity of about 6 Mt. However, there is considerable interest in converting this field into a
sub-surface gas storage facility.

There is no publicly available CO2 storage atlas of Bulgaria.

BG2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
BG2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BG2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BG2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BG2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

BG2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

113
BG3. National policies, legislation and regulations
BG3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
There is no integrated strategy of CCS deployment in Bulgaria. The “Integrated Energy and
Climate plan of Bulgaria for the period 2021–2030”, developed in accordance with EU
requirements, was accepted by the Bulgarian Government in the beginning of 2020.

BG3.2 National legislation and regulations

The EU CCS Directive has been transposed into the Bulgarian environmental legislation during
2011. Along with the adopted changes to the Bulgarian Environmental Protection Act (mid
2011), the transposition of CCS Directive was completed with the adoption of the Carbon
Dioxide Storage in Depths of Earth Act in February 2012 (see also, e.g. Nikolova et al. 2012).

BG4. Research
BG4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There have not been any special funding instruments to support CCS-related research in
Bulgaria paid by national resources.

BG4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

The Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Department of Geology, through team of Prof. Dr.
Georgi Georgiev, is the only Bulgarian institution, which up to now has performed assessments
of CO2 storage potential in Bulgaria in the frame of EU projects Castor WP2 (2005), EU
GeoCapacity (2006–2008) and CO2StoP (2012), as well as within the two above mentioned
business projects supported by the Bulgarian Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism.

BG4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

BG4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
None.

114
BG5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
BG5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Two brochures on CCS published into the Bulgarian language have been accepted positively
by the public – 1) “ГЕОЛОЖКО РЕШЕНИЕ – ЗА КЛИМАТИЧНИТЕ ПРОМЕНИ” prepared in
2007 in the frame of the project CO2NetEast, 2) translation of the CO2GeoNet brochure “What
does CO2 geological storage really mean?” into Bulgarian language published during 2012 in
the frame of the project CGS Europe, i.e.

BG5.2 National advocates for CCS

There is no national club or lobby group in the country, but some industry units and
representatives have showed cursory interest to geological options for CO2 storage around
their location.

BG5.3 Public engagement

None.

115
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in CROATIA (HR; as of 30th June 2021)

HR1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
There is no national atlas of CO2 storage in Croatia, and there have not been any exploration
licence applications so far. The only data regarding the regional storage potential comes from
the results of the FP6 project EU GeoCapacity (Vangkilde-Pedersen 2009) which were later
refined in the FP7 project CO2StoP resulting in the publicly available European CO2 Storage
Database. In the ongoing STRATEGY CCUS project, some new estimates are given and a map
is made available at that covers the continental part of the country.

Compared to its needs, Croatia has ample theoretical storage potential, mainly in its northern,
continental part (Kolenković et al. 2013). It is not excluded that additional capacity will be
defined in the Adriatic offshore, after targeted exploration (Saftić et al. 2019). There are no
national regulatory barriers for CO2 storage, but also there is no large (immediate) political
need to make use of CCS technology because the current decarbonisation targets have
already been met on a national level (see also HR3).

HR2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
HR2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
There are no specifically built capture facilities in Croatia. There is one natural gas processing
plant (NGPP Molve) and one fertilizer plant (Petrokemija Kutina) that are able to give almost
clean stream of CO2.

HR2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
Connected to HR2.3 below, Ivanić project is being prepared for Phase 2 which will include
recirculation of produced CO2 partly in the same reservoirs and maybe partly in the
neighbouring small fields.

116
HR2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
There is only the CO2-EOR project carried out by the INA Oil Company and followed by
development of the same site (Ivanić project) where the two depleted oil reservoirs of the
Ivanić and Žutica fields 45 km E of Zagreb are being brought on to the tertiary production
phase. This is an ongoing commercial project, and all is within the company. CO2 is brought
by a pipeline from the gas condensate field Molve located close to Hungarian border (70 km
distance approx.), recompressed and injected through several wells in Miocene sandstones
with intergranular porosity. The project is working well and is currently on increasing the oil
production.

AAT GEOTHERMAE is a pilot project in northern Croatia, being started and developed in
cooperation with CLEAG from Switzerland. The location is named Draškovec and it lies in the
Međimurje county, in a lowland area just north of the Drava River. The project includes building
of a geothermal power plant (18.6 MWe) with co-generation (75 MWth) and a heat distribution
system to the small town of Prelog (industrial zone and residential areas). This should all be
combined with a wellness and spa resort close to the site (“Hortus Croatiae”) and agricultural
production. Altogether four production wells and four injection wells are planned. The natural
gas separated from the water will be used for “green power” by capturing the CO2 from the
flue gases, mixing it with the CO2 that was also separated from the water and injecting it back
into the subsurface. The project had significant political support and gained substantial EU
funding. It is under development and applies for the second phase.

HR2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

HR2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

From the STRATEGY CCUS project, the most current plans are given in Figure HR. This shows
concentration of sources, depleted HC fields and regional saline aquifers in continental
Croatia. Two hubs are envisaged – Eastern cluster (EC) and Central cluster (CC), with CO2 in
EC to be transported to the Beničanci oil field and Bokšić gas field in eastern part of the Drava
depression, while in the CC a timely shift of direction of transport is now planned – firstly CO2
is going to be brought in the western part of the Sava depression (with number of oil and gas
reservoirs) and later the direction of transport would be changed using the same pipeline
system to store CO2 in the western part of the Drava depression where the reservoirs are not
depleted yet. This altogether means that CO2-EOR and CCUS in Croatia will initially be
developed onshore although half of emission sources are located on the Adriatic coastline.

117
To deal with this part would require development of storage sites in the (northern) Adriatic
offshore, or to use the regional pipeline corridor and build there another line specifically for
CO2 (oil and LNG already exist). There are many environmental considerations that can either
stop this second phase of development or make it uneconomical.

Figure HR: Web map for the Northern Croatia promising region – STRATEGY CCUS.

HR3. National policies, legislation and regulations

HR3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Relatively low emissions per capita result in a perceived lack of incentives for ambitious
immediate action (see emission reduction status described per ETS/non-ETS below). A large
proportion of hydroelectric power installed causes variable total emissions depending on
rainfall. Current increase in energy import (mostly oil/gas and petroleum products), especially
after 2015 significantly influences the carbon budget and it should also be noted that general
decline in industrial activity in the past decades resulted firstly in sharp decrease in energy
imports 1990–1992 and then a gradual one in 2008–2014 period. In total, this means that
Croatia has no urgent problem with CO2 emissions but this is only temporary, i.e. until 2030,
because a strong increase of RES implementation is planned.

118
ETS sector emissions: 10 649 kt CO2 eq which is a reduction of -21.4% during 2005–2017. This
means that the EU target for 2020 (-21%) has already been achieved. However, to reach the
EU target for 2030 (-43%) a strong transition will be needed. This is only 9 years away! It is
currently planned to achieve this with strong increase of renewables in electricity production.

Non-ETS emissions: 17 404 kt CO2 eq which is a reduction of -4.2% during 2005–2017, which
is below the EU target (-20%) but Croatia was given a specific target for 2020 (+11%) so this
is presently significantly exceeded with a good perspective that a specific target of -7% by
2030 might be reached if the trend is kept up. One must be careful here, as non-ETS emissions
are harder to decarbonise in comparison to large sources and the presently achieved
reduction is not only the result of active measures, as explained above.

ETS sector emissions locations: There are only a few large (exceeding 100,000 t/year)
stationary sources of CO2 – 1 natural gas processing plant (NGPP), 1 thermal power plant
(TPP), 3 cement plants and 1 fertilizer plant. Half of these are in the continental part of the
country and half are located on the coastline. There is potential to decarbonise them by using
CCS technology because there are approximately 15 depleted oil and gas fields that can be
used for geological storage of CO2. The CO2-EOR technology is being tested through the
ongoing CO2-EOR project Ivanić (with alternating injection of CO2 and brine) but this is still
strictly a mining project.

HR3.2 National legislation and regulations

Low-Carbon Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia until 2030 with an outlook to
2050 (long prepared but formally accepted in the end only in 2020) – includes CCS but only in
the most ambitious of the three emission reduction scenarios.

Energy Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia up to 2030 with an outlook to 2050
(accepted in parallel with National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) – recognises CCS as one
of the viable options and includes continuation of domestic oil and gas exploration and
production.

National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), draft assessment was received, 2nd version was
prepared and upon public consultation accepted in 2020.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection was responsible for this activity until 2016.
Restructuring the government “moved” this to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Energy during the 2016–2020 period. The competent authority in terms of the EU CCS
Directive is the Croatian Hydrocarbon Agency (CHA) that deals with permitting and all
subsurface exploration. The Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF) is
the state funding agency for covering all sectors but they seldom have a specific call that
would be oriented to CCS. The most recent reorganisation of the government after the 2020

119
elections resulted in the establishment of the large Ministry of Economy and Sustainable
Development that is supposed to govern this sector among many others.

The EU CCS Directive was transposed in national regulations within the Law on Exploration
and Exploitation of Hydrocarbons in 2014 (Zakon o istraživanju i eksploataciji ugljikovodika,
Narodne novine, 94/13 and 14/14), which was replaced by the new one - Law on Exploration
and Exploitation of Hydrocarbons in 2018 (Zakon o istraživanju i eksploataciji ugljikovodika,
Narodne novine, 52/18). One of the main changes here is that the Directive was only partly
contained within the original Law in the first arrangement and most of it was in the respective
By-law, whereas now it is almost all in the Law itself, although the By-law still defines the
details, as stipulated in Article 103. The Republic of Croatia has therewith prepared the legal
framework for geological storage of CO2 with the only exception that the state is firstly
responsible to define the prospective areas wherein exploration licences can be issued, also
meaning that the state can actually exclude some areas from this purpose if it decides so, but
in advance. All other stipulations are strictly in accordance with the Directive, including the
fact that pilot projects (under 100 kt/year) are exempted from these procedures because they
are aimed at research.

HR4. Research
HR4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There was only one research project specifically oriented to CCS field and it was funded by
the only national science agency – Croatian Science Foundation: Evaluation System for CO2
Mitigation (ESCOM). Exemplary references of the published results are Vulin et al. (2018) and
Vulin et al. (2020).

Table HR: Overview of research topics addressed by the ESCOM project.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed (X) X X X X X (X)

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

120
There is another project from the same funding, oriented at the geological characterisation of
the subsurface in the eastern part of the Drava depression aimed to estimate the Energy
Potential (GEODEP). It also considers the CO2 storage potential among other possible
subsurface uses, but only in the part of continental Croatia.

HR4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

This is not a common research topic, but there is a constant activity of a small group of
researchers at University of Zagreb – Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering
and also at the Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar. This is almost exclusive list.

HR4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

HR4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
University of Zagreb – Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering recently
participated/ currently participates in two Horizon 2020 projects:

1. ENOS – Enabling Onshore CO2 Storage in Europe as a CO2GeoNet associated third

party.
2. STRATEGY CCUS – A viable solution to sustainable future as a partner.

HR5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

HR5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
There is no scientific survey available and a public debate on this topic in Croatia is still non-
existent. The focus of any carbon emission reduction policies is on renewable energy sources,
energy efficiency and land use, land-use change and forestry activities. Since Croatia is
recently fulfilling its European goals in the short term (5 years), this is not regarded urgent in
comparison with developing economy as a whole.

121
HR5.2 National advocates for CCS
CCS can still be advocated only by a small group of researches in the mentioned institutes
and by the state regulatory body (Croatian Hydrocarbon Agency – CHA) that is supposed to
work on the implementation of this technology when the time comes. Current developments
in the national oil industry (INA) prevent the management from expanding the investment, but
there is still the ongoing CO2-EOR project Ivanić and there are plans for its second phase which
would include reinjection of the produced CO2.

There are, though large emitters from the energy sector, cement industry, fertilizer plant and
others that are looking forward to reducing their present and future expenditures connected
to CO2 emissions but they lack the funds and lobbying strength. Moreover, the continuation of
domestic oil and gas production is planned in the Energy strategy, meaning that government
has not officially backed down from this sector and this has implication of the possibilities for
the future developments of CCUS in addition to CO2-EOR.

HR5.3 Public engagement

Current public engagement campaign is only within the STRATEGY CCUS project.

122
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in CYPRUS (CY; as of 30th June 2021)

CY1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
There is no information available on storage capacity. The tentative storage capacity is
unavoidably limited by the geological layer formation of Cyprus, which has not yet been
exploited in this respect. There is no national CO2 storage Atlas available for Cyprus.

So far there have not been any applications for CO2 storage exploration licences nor for
storage permits.

CY2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
CY2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
No demonstration or pilot projects or sites for CO2 capture have existed, exist or are in
preparation.

CY2.2 Past and current demonstration/pilot projects for CO2 transport &
projects/sites in preparation
No demonstration or pilot projects or sites for CO2 transport have existed, exist or are in
preparation.

CY2.3 Past and current demonstration/pilot projects for CO2 geological storage
& projects/sites in preparation
No demonstration or pilot projects or sites for CO2 geological storage have existed, exist or
are in preparation.

123
CY2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
No demonstration or pilot full-chain CCS projects or sites have existed, exist or are in
preparation.

CY2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

No plans for CCUS cluster development exist.

CY3. National policies, legislation and regulations

CY3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The Department of Environment of the Republic simply states the key points of the EU CCS
Directive.

CY3.2 National legislation and regulations

The transposition of the EU CCS Directive was completed and the national “CO2 Storage in
Geological Formations Law” was voted by the parliament and came into force on 8th June
2012. There was also a small amendment of the Law on 2nd December 2015. The main clauses
of the Law are as follows:

This Law establishes the legal framework for the environmentally safe storage of CO2 in
geological formations as a contribution to the fight against climate change. The purpose of
environmentally safe storage of CO2 in geological formations is the permanent isolation of
CO2 in such a way as to eliminate as much as possible the negative consequences and any
risks to the environment and human health. The Law applies to the storage of CO2 in
geological formations in the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, in its Exclusive Economic Zone,
and on its continental shelf.

The Law does not apply to the storage of CO2 in geological formations with a total estimated
storage of less than 100 kt, which is carried out for research, development or testing of new
products and processes.

CO2 storage is prohibited for (a) a storage site with a storage complex extending beyond the
area referred to above, and (b) in a water column.

The Minister may, by decree published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, designate, after
consulting an Advisory Committee, the areas from which CO2 storage sites may be selected
in accordance with the requirements of this Law. The evaluation of the exploration permit

124
applications is done by the Advisory Committee, which prepares an opinion in the form of a
draft decision for exploration permit, based on guidelines issued by the competent authority
and submits it to the competent authority, within two months from the date of receipt of the
respective application.

The competent authority ensures that: (a) any storage site is not operated without first
obtaining a storage permit, there is only one operator for each storage site and conflicting
uses of that site are not permitted; (b) storage licensing procedures are open to all entities
that have the technical and financial capacity as well as reliability for the operation and control
of the storage site and to maintain impartiality and transparency at all stages of the licensing
process. The competent authority ensures that conflicting uses of the storage complex are
not permitted during the licensing process.

Each operator must obtain a storage permit before starting any activity. The storage license
is approved and is valid for a specific period and with specific conditions and is subject to
renewal, if requested by the operator at least six months before its expiration.

The law also states that a CO2 stream should consist primarily of CO2. To this end, no waste
or other materials may be added for the purpose of disposing of such waste or other materials.
A CO2 stream may contain traces of related substances from the source, binding or injection
process and traces of substances added to assist in the monitoring and verification of CO2
migration. The concentrations of these substances are determined by a relevant decree and
must be lower than certain levels. The competent authority ensures that the operator keeps a
record of the quantities and characteristics of the delivered and injected CO2 streams,
including their composition. The operator should submit to the competent authority at least
one annual report by 31st March of the following year for monitoring carried out during the
year in question. The competent authority plans and carries out regular and extraordinary
inspections of all storage complexes. The competent authority takes the necessary measures
to ensure that potential users have access to CO2 transmission networks and storage sites
for the purpose of storing the generated and bound CO2 in geological formations. The
competent authority ensures that, in the event of leaks or significant irregularities, the operator
notifies it immediately and that it takes the necessary and appropriate corrective measures
without delay.

In cases of cross-border transport of CO2, cross-border storage sites or cross-border storage

complexes, the competent authority ensures that, in cooperation with the respective
competent authorities of the other Member States of the European Union, the requirements
of this Law and the rest of the relevant European Union legislation are met.

A CO2 storage site closes: (a) if the relevant conditions laid down in the storage permit have
been complied with; (b) at the substantiated request of the operator and with the authorisation
of the competent authority; or (c) if the competent authority so decides after the storage
permit has been revoked.

125
The competent authority establishes and maintains: (a) a register of applications for
exploration permits; (b) a register of exploration permits issued; (c) a register of applications
for storage permit; (d) a register of the storage permits granted; (e) a permanent record of all
closed storage sites and surrounding storage facilities, including maps and parts of their
spatial extensions, as well as available information useful for assessing the complete and
permanent isolation of stored CO2.

The competent authority makes available to the public the data and environmental
information relating to the storage of CO2 in geological formations in accordance with
applicable law.

CY4. Research
CY4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There has not been specific funding for research related to CCS (other than the general
research funding for any kind of research provided by the Research Promotion Foundation of
Cyprus).

CY4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

There are no research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage.

CY4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

There is no existing larger scale related research infrastructure.

CY4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
There are no EU-funded and other regional/international research projects related to CCS with
participation of Cypriot partners.

126
CY5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
CY5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
There does not seem to exist any awareness of CCS technology.

CY5.2 National advocates for CCS

There does not seem to exist any national advocates for CCS other than the Department of
Environment.

CY5.3 Public engagement

There does not seem to exist any public engagement other than that of the Department of
Environment as the official authority.

127
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in the CZECH REPUBLIC (CZ; as of 30th June 2021)

CZ1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The CO2 storage potential of the Czech Republic has been mapped in the EU GeoCapacity
project (2006–2008), showing the largest capacity in aquifers (conservative capacity estimate
766 Mt), followed by coal seams (54 Mt) and hydrocarbon fields (33 Mt). The CO2StoP update
of 2014, based on the stochastic computations of capacities using the StoreFit tool revealed
storage capacity intervals of 134-990 Mt in aquifers for 2% storage efficiency and 17.8-
21.1 Mt in hydrocarbon fields.

A re-assessment of the storage capacity of the eastern part of the country (the Carpathians)
has been performed within the REPP-CO2 project in 2015–2016, bringing more precise
information on some prospective storage sites, but without any major change in the overall
storage capacity figures. In general, the country might lack sufficient storage capacity if CCS
is to be deployed at larger scale.

There is no publicly available CO2 storage atlas of Czechia.

Five CO2 storage exploration licences were awarded in early 2010s but have never been used
and were relinquished after several years. No storage permit applications have been filed yet.

There is a regulation-related factor limiting CO2 storage in Czechia – the Czech national law
(Act No. 85/2012) limits the amount of CO2 that can be stored in one storage site to 1 Mt/year.

CZ2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
CZ2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

CZ2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

128
CZ2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
No CO2 storage project has been realised yet. A CO2 storage pilot project in the LBr-1 depleted
HC field has been prepared by the REPP-CO2 and ENOS projects in 2015–2019, but put on hold
due to issues related to legacy wells and expected high cost of their re-abandonment.

Zar-3 – a depleting HC field is now being studied as a new possible target of a CO2 storage
pilot within the project “CO2 Storage Pilot in a Carbonate Reservoir” (CO2-SPICER; 2020–2024),
a Czech-Norwegian research project supported from Norway Grants and the Technology
Agency of the Czech Republic.

CZ2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
A couple of full-chain CCS projects are in early phases of preparation with the vision to apply
for Innovation Fund funding. Details are still confidential and cannot be revealed.

CZ2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

CZ3. National policies, legislation and regulations

CZ3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
There is no integrated strategy of CCS deployment in Czechia. The Czech Republic’s NECP of
November 2019 mentions possible use of CCS in combination with natural gas, without closer
specification. The National Energy Policy (latest update in 2014) acknowledges possible role
of CCS after 2040 and recommends support of research related to CO2 storage.

The National Climate Policy of 2017 presents several scenarios targeting the original 80-95%
emission reduction goal for 2050. One of the scenarios includes massive deployment of CCS
applied to power production; this scenario is, however, unrealistic in view of the planned
abandonment of coal mining and closure of coal-fired power plants (time plan for this now
under discussion).

129
CZ3.2 National legislation and regulations
The EU CCS Directive was transposed into the Czech legislation in 2012 (Act No. 85/2012). In
2016 a brief technical amendment was passed (Act 193/2016). The time limit prohibiting CO2
storage projects exceeding 100 kt until 1st January 2020 has expired and CO2 storage is now
generally allowed.

The competent authority defined in the law is the Regional Mining Authority.

The subsurface is owned by the state.

CZ4. Research
CZ4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There have not been any special funding instruments to support CCS-related research in
Czechia paid by national resources. Research funding opportunities, especially the
programmes of the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (TACR) have been common
with other types of energy-related research.

The only focused funding was provided by Norway Grants. A special programme – CZ08 –
Carbon Capture and Storage was implemented in 2015–2017, supporting 4 research projects
and numerous supporting bilateral Czech-Norwegian activities by CZK 118 million (ca.
EUR 4.7 million). The only CO2-storage-related project was REPP-CO2 (Preparation of a
Research Pilot Project on CO2 Geological Storage in the Czech Republic). The other projects
of the CZ08 programme dealt with CO2 capture, transport, integration in value chain and
awareness raising.

Table CZ: Overview of research topics addressed by the REPP-CO2 project

Storage capacity

Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex

impact

Social
Topic

Well

Addressed x (x) - x x x x x -

130
The new round of Norway Grants (currently running) includes a special CCS-devoted part
(budget ca. CZK 125 million, combining funding from Norway Grants, the Czech national
budget and own resources of project participants) in the Programme for applied research,
experimental development and innovation, administered by TACR (KAPPA programme). Two
projects were selected for funding – one dedicated to CO2 capture (hybrid nanofiber
membranes) and one focusing on storage (CO2-SPICER – see above).

A large national research centre for low-carbon energy technologies – Bio-CCS/U (2018–
2022) – is currently financed by the Czech Operational Programme "Research, Development
and Education” that uses EU money from the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The centre deals with oxy-fuel combustion of biomass
and various aspects of CCU related to production of 3rd and 4th generation biofuels.

CZ4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Czech Geological Survey (CGS) is the major player in CO2 storage-related research in Czechia.
Other actors are:

- VSB – Technical University of Ostrava

- ÚJV Řež, a.s.

CZ4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

CZ4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
CGS was involved in the ENOS project (Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe, H2020, 2016–
2020).

The consultancy company EUROPEUM is involved in the project “Building momentum for the
long-term CCS deployment in the CEE region” that is supported by the Fund for Regional
Cooperation of EEA and Norway Grants.

131
CZ5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
CZ5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
In general, knowledge of the general public about the CCS technology is very limited because
of the lack of any visible activity up to now. No scientific survey has been performed regarding
public opinion on CCS.

CZ5.2 National advocates for CCS

There is not any national club or lobby group in the country, but industry representatives of
emission-intensive industries and the national oil & gas company have become active in
supporting CCS as a measure of CO2 emission reduction.

CZ5.3 Public engagement

None.

132
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in DENMARK (DK; as of 30th June 2021)

DK1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The first assessment of CO2 storage capacity for Denmark was published in the EU Joule II
report (Holloway 1996) and estimated to 5,597 Mt CO2 in onshore aquifers and 592 Mt CO2 in
hydrocarbon fields in the North Sea. It was assumed that the storage was in traps onshore
and that the total trap volume was 4% of the aquifers and that 6% of the trap pore volume
could be filled with CO2.

In 2004 the GESTCO project estimated a storage capacity in saline aquifers as 16,867 Mt CO2
and 629 Mt in hydrocarbon fields (Larsen et al. 2003, Shuppers et al. 2003). The aquifer
capacity was based on storage in 11 mapped geological structures (4 way-closures). These
estimates were updated in the EU GeoCapacity project (Vangkilde-Pedersen 2009) to
16,672 Mt in aquifers and 810 Mt in hydrocarbon fields.

In 2013 the CO2StoP project created a GIS database and calculated a storage capacity for
aquifers between 263-275,000 Mt CO2, with a mean value of 51,900 Mt. This calculation was
based on total estimate for four aquifer storage units (Poulsen et al. 2014). No calculations
for the Danish hydrocarbon fields were made in CO2StoP.

No national CO2 storage atlas has been published, but Danish storage data is included in both
the CO2StoP database (available at the EGDI platform) and in the NORDICCS atlas. An update
of the Danish CO2 storage capacity was finalised in 2020. The update revisited the geological
structures mapped in GESTCO, EU GeoCapacity, NORDICCS and CO2StoP, and the updated
storage capacity were estimated to be between 12.3 Gt and 24.6 Gt. The updated storage
capacity estimates are published in “Evaluation of the CO2 storage potential in Denmark”
(Hjelm et al. 2020).

A pre-application from the Swedish company Vattenfall for large-scale CO2 storage in northern
Jutland was stopped in 2011 by the Minister of Climate and Energy. This was followed by a
moratorium for CO2 storage in Denmark. Only CO2 storage used in connection to EOR in the
Danish hydrocarbon fields in the North Sea was excluded.

133
DK2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
DK2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
A carbon capture pilot was built at the Esbjerg power plant as part of the European CASTOR
project. The capture tests were conducted in 2006–2007 and was followed by the CESAR
project which carried out tests in 2009–2010. The capture pilot facility was decommissioned
in 2011.

The waste incineration facility in Copenhagen, ARC (Amager Resource Center), is in the
process of constructing a CO2 capture pilot (EUDP 2020-I Net Zero Carbon Capture på ARC).
The test pilot facility is expected to be ready in 2022/2023 and plans for a total capture rate
of 500 kt/year. The pilot is supported by the Danish Energy Technology Development and
Demonstration Program (EUDP).

Another carbon capture project supported by EUDP is GreenCem. The cement producer
Aalborg Portland has received funding to develop an integrated a CO2 capture facility. The
project will use the CO2 for synthetic fuel production.

DK2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
No project on CO2 transport has been carried out in Denmark, except as part of the full-chain
Vedsted project (section DK2.3) in which CO2 transport by a 30 km pipeline was considered,
but the project was closed in 2011 due to the moratorium for CO2 storage in Denmark.

DK2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
The Greensand project (2020) is analysing the possibility to store CO2 in depleting oil fields in
the Danish North Sea. The consortium includes Ineos, Maersk Drilling, Wintershall Dea and
GEUS and is funded by the Danish Energy Technology Development and Demonstration
Program (EUDP).

134
DK2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
- The Vedsted-Nordjyllandsværket project (2009–2011) initiated by Swedish energy
company Vattenfall, who planned to store CO2 captured from the heat and power plant
Nordjyllandsværket in the city of Aalborg, transportation by pipeline and injection into
a geological structure (aquifer) 30 km vest of Aalborg. The exploration phase included
new seismic survey and reuse of data from the Vedsted-1 well. The application for CO2
injection was stopped in 2011 due to the moratorium for CO2 storage in Denmark and
the project was closed shortly afterwards.
- Capture, storage and use of CO2 (CCUS2020) is an ongoing research project covering
the entire CCS value chain including use of carbon (Capture, storage and use of CO2).
The project is analysing the technological barriers for implementing CCUS in Denmark.
The project was a cooperation between several Danish state institutions and included
the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, the Danish Energy Agency, Gas
Storage Denmark, Energinet and The Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities and it is
funded by the Danish Research reserve (part of the Danish finance act for 2020).

DK2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The C4 cluster is formed by a number of major utility companies in the Copenhagen
metropolitan area that plan to make carbon capture a crucial element in the green transition
in Denmark. Planned CO2 emission reductions totals at around 3 million tonnes per year. The
C4 consortium consists at present of ARC, Argo, BIOFOS, Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP),
CTR, HOFOR, Vestforbrænding, VEKS and Ørsted.

DK3. National policies, legislation and regulations

DK3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
In June 2020, the Danish parliament passed a new Climate Act. The Climate Act will act as
the new framework for Danish climate policy in the years to come, for example through
establishing an ambition mechanism with a five-year cycle, designed to ensure both early
action and to revise the reduction targets.

Basic facts
• The Climate Act aims at reducing Denmark’s carbon emissions by 70% by 2030
compared to 1990 levels and towards net-zero by 2050.
• The Climate Act is legally binding.
• The emissions are calculated in accordance with the UN accounting rules.

135
Milestone targets
• The Climate Act contains a mechanism for setting milestone targets. Every five years
the government must set a legally binding target with a ten-year perspective.
• During the government’s forthcoming Climate Action Plan in 2020, an indicative
milestone target will be set for 2025.
• The milestone targets will be implemented in Danish law.
Annual Climate Action Programmes
• The Danish Government will develop annual Climate Action Plans that will outline
concrete policies to reduce emissions for all sectors: energy, housing, industry,
transportation, energy efficiency, agriculture, and land use change and forestry.
The Danish Council on Climate Change (“Klimarådet”)
• The Danish Council on Climate Change will present their professional assessment of
whether the initiatives in the Climate Action Plan is sufficient to reduce emissions.
• The Danish Council on Climate Change provides recommendations on climate
initiatives. The council’s budget will be more than doubled with the Annual budget
and more experts are added to the council. Furthermore, the council’s political
independence is strengthened as it can now elect its own chairperson and members.
Global reporting and strategy
• The Climate Act commits the Government to separately report on Denmark’s impact
on international emissions, including those pertaining to international shipping and
aviation. Furthermore, reductions from electricity produced from renewable sources
and the effects of Denmark’s bilateral energy cooperation with 15 countries can be
taken into account. Finally, it will shed light on the impacts of consumption.
• Furthermore, the Climate Act commits the Government to form a yearly global
climate strategy to ensure that Denmark keeps on its ambitious work at the global
scene.

DK3.2 National legislation and regulations

The EU CCS Directive was implemented in the Danish subsurface act in spring 2011, but a
moratorium for CO2 storage in Denmark has existed since autumn 2011. Only CO2 storage
used for EOR in the Danish hydrocarbon fields in the North Sea was permitted. Permission to
store CO2 offshore and onshore Denmark was postponed to 2020 pending on discussions in
the Danish parliament. The permission to store CO2 was accepted by a majority of the
parliament members in spring 2021, but legislation is to be finalised in 2022. Opposite to the
moratorium in 2011, CO2 EOR is no longer permitted following the decision for settlement of
Danish oil and gas production by 2050.

136
DK4. Research
DK4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
- The Danish Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program (EUDP).
The programme is funding technology development and demonstration projects
covering the entire CCS chain. EUDP also administrates the Danish part of the ERA-Net
ACT (Accelerating CCS Technologies).
- Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD) invests in projects at all stages of the research and
innovation value chain. Thus, IFD invests in the early strategic research project, where
targeted efforts and cooperation with the most competent international and/or Danish
partners from relevant scientific and professional disciplines are crucial, as well as a
promising project that lacks the final steps towards implementation and a successful
introduction into market/society.
- Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF) funds specific research activities within
all scientific areas that are based on the researchers' own initiatives and that improve
the quality and internationalisation of Danish research.

Between 2011 and 2020 only one storage related CCS-project has received national funding.
The project “CO2 neutral energy system utilising the subsurface (CONvert)” was a techno-
economic feasibility study of an integrated energy system, combining geothermal, CCS and
energy storage by power-to-gas. The project was funded by the Danish Energy Technology
Development and Demonstration Program (EUDP).

In 2020 a research project covering the entire CCS value chain including use of carbon
(Capture, storage and use of CO2 – CCUS2020) and funded by the Research reserve (part of
the finance act 2020) was launched. The project is analysing the technological barriers for
implementing CCUS in Denmark.

Table DK: Overview of research topics addressed by the CCUS2020 project.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed (x) (x) - - - (x) (x) (x) -

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

137
DK4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
GEUS – The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland was for many years the only
research institute involved in CO2 storage research projects. With the increased national focus
on CCS as a tool to mitigate CO2 emissions several Danish universities are conducting
research in CCS, e.g. the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) is conducting research in both
CO2 storage and capture, the universities in Copenhagen (KU) and Aarhus (AU) are conducting
research for CO2 storage.

DK4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

At present, no large-scale research infrastructure exists in Denmark.

DK4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
GEUS has contributed to a vast number of EU funded projects such as SACS, GESTCO,
EU GeoCapacity, CASTOR, CO2Store, COACH, Dynamis, CO2ReMoVe, CO2SINK, ECCO,
CO2Care, SiteChar, ENOS, SECURe. Examples of other international projects in which GEUS
was involved are Weyburn, CGS Europe, BIGCCS and NORDICCS.

DK5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

DK5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Both the Danish Climate Act and the Climate Agreement for Energy and Industry from 22nd
June 2020 mention CCS as one of the future technology solutions to reduce CO2 emissions in
Denmark). Public discussions in the press prior to the Climate Act agreement have caused
increased interest in CCUS from owners of large emission point sources, such as waste
incineration facilities and CO2 intense industry (cement) and is reflected in the number of
research, pilot and demonstration projects planned and applied for in 2020.

138
DK5.2 National advocates for CCS
The Danish Council on Climate Change (Klimarådet) is an independent body of experts that
advises on the transition to a low-carbon society and considers CCUS as a necessary
technology to reduce CO2 emissions. The political and commercial independent green think
tank CONCITO, who convey new and proven climate solutions to politicians, companies and
citizens, is in general positive towards CCS.

Denmark has established a total of 14 “climate partnerships”, each partnership covering a

specific business sector. The purpose is to give advice on how to reduce CO2 emissions and
identify any barriers for a green transition. Two of these partnerships, the energy consuming
industry and energy supply partnerships, point to CCS as a solution for CO2 reductions within
their sectors.

DK5.3 Public engagement

At present theirs no public engagement in CCS projects. The only experience with public
engagement is related to the Vedsted project in 2009–2011 where the local population near
the injection site formed a protest group against CO2 storage. The group created a lot of press
attention and organised a demonstration in front of the Danish Parliament in 2011, at the time
where the subsurface act was discussed related to implementation of the EU CCS directive.
The EU CCS Directive was implemented in the Danish subsurface law, but shortly after a
moratorium against CO2 storage was decided by the parliament.

139
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in ESTONIA (EE; as of 30th June 2021)

EE1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
CO2 storage capacity of Estonia was estimated until now as zero, explained by its shallow
sedimentary basins and the presence of potable water in the local aquifers (Shogenova et al.
2009a, b). However, the Cambrian Series 3 Deimena Stage sandstones, the most prospective
storage reservoir in the Baltic States, could be re-estimated for CO2 storage in the south west
of Estonia based on the recent research results (Pärn 2018), giving prospects for good
isolation of the Cambrian saline aquifer by upper aquitards. Salinity about 20g/l, the low
reservoir temperature (9˚C) and overall pressure-temperature (P-T) conditions are positive
factors supporting storage of CO2as a dense-phase fluid (density about 900 kg/m3). Additional
exploration data and storage site modelling are needed to estimate its storage capacity and
safety.

EE2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
EE2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
A project on mineral carbonation of CO2 using annually at least one megaton of oil shale ash
and producing high-quality carbonate materials for various uses is under development now by
environmental company Ragn-Sells AS. Ragn-Sells established a subsidiary, R-S OSA Service,
to administer the oil shale ash valorisation project launched five years ago. The company has
led the creation of a scientific consortium in which, among others, researchers from the
University of Tartu and the Tallinn University of Technology are involved in fundamental and
applied research. The company submitted an application to the Estonian Patent Office to
request patents for its innovative oil shale ash valorisation process, which makes it possible
to reprocess the majority of the ash waste created in energy generation in Estonia into
materials.

140
EE2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

EE2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

EE2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

EE2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Economic modelling of the Estonian–Latvian transboundary capture–transport–sink scenario
of industrial CO2 emissions was first made in EU GeoCapacity project using a GIS-based
Decision Support System (Shogenova et al. 2011). Considering these research results, a new
study of the cross-border transport, utilisation and storage of CO2 emissions produced by
cement industry and power sector in Estonia are made in the frame of the Horizon 2020
project CLEANKER (Simmer 2018, Shogenova et al. 2021a). The considered cluster of
emission sources includes the four largest Estonian power plants, Kunda Nordic Cement plant
in Estonia and Latvenergo, TEC2 power plant in Latvia. The developed CCUS scenario includes
mineral carbonation of CO2 with oil shale ash produced in Estonia. Captured CO2 will be
transported via pipelines to onshore CO2 storage sites in Latvia (Blidene and North-Blidene).

Another proposed cluster includes in addition to Estonian and Latvian sources mentioned
above, a cement plant from Lithuania and a storage site offshore Latvia (E6 structure)
(Shogenov & Shogenova 2021). The methodology elaborated by the CLEANKER project,
including database development, is applied for techno-economic modelling (Shogenova &
Shogenov 2018).

At the moment all these cluster scenarios are developed only at the research level.

141
EE3. National policies, legislation and regulations
EE3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Estonia has ratified the Paris Climate Agreement on 4th November 2016. The long-term target
of Estonia is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by 2050 by 80% in comparison with
the emission levels of 1990. As the country moves towards this target, emissions will be
reduced by about 70% by 2030 and by 72% by 2040 in comparison with the 1990 emission
levels. If the policies are implemented, then by 2050, GHG emissions will have decreased the
most in the energy sector and industry (by 67%).

Estonia has ratified the London Protocol, and in 2019 has ratified the 2009 amendment to
article 6, enabling the export of CO2 streams for the purpose of storage in trans-boundary sub-
seabed geological formations. Now Estonia is among the seven countries which ratified this
amendment.

Estonia is a party of the OSPAR Convention under the European Union sign. Estonia is a
contracting party to the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM).

In 2019 increase of CO2 emission allowance price up to EUR 25-30 per tonne in EU ETS led to
an increase of the oil-shale based energy price and made it not competitive to the cheaper
Russian energy (as Russia is not paying any carbon taxes). As a result, the largest Estonian
national energy company Eesti Energia decreased energy production by about a factor of 2
and decreased production of CO2 by 5 Mt in 2019, compared to 2018. In addition, Eesti Energia
is planning to apply CCUS in 2030 to 2035 for shale oil and chemicals produced from Estonian
oil shales. To reach carbon neutrality in the power sector, Eesti Energia has started to replace
oil shales by biofuel (wood waste) for energy production.

In addition, Estonia has future plans to produce H2. Producing H2 with CCS could be one of the
future options to implement CCS technology. National financial support is targeted now on
CO2 capture and use.

As reported by Eesti Energia, Estonia's total CO2 emissions decreased by about a quarter over
the year. The European Union is setting a target of reducing carbon emissions by 50-55% by
2030 compared to 1990, but Estonia is ahead of that ambition and has already reduced its
emissions by nearly 65%.

EE3.2 National legislation and regulations

Estonia has banned commercial-scale CCS in its territories (both onshore and offshore) and
therefore, the transposition of the EU CCS Directive was focused primarily on CO2 transport
networks.

142
The Ministry of Environment of Estonia is the only competent authority responsible for
fulfilling duties established under Article 23 of the Directive, except in the case of construction
of a transboundary transport pipeline, which requires a permit from the Government.

Although there are no specific CO2 storage capacity studies ordered by the legal authorities,
published studies of Estonian researchers indicate that geological conditions are very
unfavourable for onshore storage (Shogenova et al. 2009a, b, 2011). According to these
research results, the territory of Estonia, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of
Estonia are unsuitable for CO2 storage within the meaning of UNCLOS and the EU CCS
Directive. Therefore, the Earth’s Crust Act and the draft Act amending the Water Act prohibit
the geological storage of CO2 in both the earth’s crust or in sea areas. Exploration permits
stipulated in Article 5 of the EU CCS Directive are not used in Estonia.

CO2 injection for research purposes (up to 100 kt CO2) is permitted in Estonia according to
Estonian regulations.

Monitoring. Commission Decision 2010/345/EU amending Commission Decision

2007/589/EC is a basis for regulation determining the emissions from CO2 storage and
transport in Estonia, including provisions for reporting. Operators must submit an annual
report to the Ministry of Environment of Estonia on the monitoring technology used and the
quantities of CO2 transported for storage during the reporting period. Operators must keep a
record of the quantities and chemical content of the CO2 transported, which should be sent to
the Ministry of Environment once a year.

Transport networks and transboundary issues. According to the Water Act a permit is
required for the construction of CO2 transport pipelines underwater and this permit is issued
by the Minister of Environment. Also, the requirement for submerging a cable line under water
and consent for this is granted by the Government.

According to Planning Act, a CO2 transport pipeline that runs underground through several
local government areas is considered to be a linear structure, the corridor of which is
established under country plans.

According to the Act amending the Ambient Air Protection Act (RT I 31.12.2010, 31) “the
owner or operator of the existing transport pipeline has an obligation to connect to the existing
CO2 transport pipeline by pipeline of another entity who has requested that (‘accessing entity’)
if the technical conditions allow for it and it does not pose a risk to the existing transport
capacity, people’s health or environment”. Any refusals must be explained in writing within 30
days of receiving the access application.

143
EE4. Research
EE4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
CO2 storage group of Department of Isotope Geology of Institute of Geology (now Department
of Geology-TalTechDG) of Tallinn University of Technology made research focused on storage
site characterisation and capacity assessment in the regional scale (Shogenov et al. 2013 a,
b, 2017a, Sliaupa et al. 2013, Nordbäck et al. 2017), petrophysical and numerical seismic
modelling (Shogenov et al. 2013a, 2016), classification of reservoir quality (Shogenov et al.
2015a), experimental modelling of CO2-fluid-rock interaction (Shogenov et al. 2015b), synergy
of CO2 storage and CO2 use for recovery of resources (Shogenov et al. 2017b, 2019,
Shogenova and Shogenov 2017), CCS regulations in Europe and Baltic Region (Shogenova et
al. 2011, 2013, 2018).

The PhD research of K. Shogenov “Petrophysical models of the CO2 plume at prospective
storage sites in the Baltic Basin” defended in 2015 in Tallinn University of Technology (TTU)
was partially funded by Estonian targeted funding programme of the Estonian Ministry of
Education and Research, Archimedes Foundation programme DoRa, Estonian Doctoral School
of Earth Sciences and Ecology, and project “ERMAS” of the Estonian national R&D Programme
KESTA. It was also partly funded by EU FP7 project CGS Europe and Marie Curie Research
Training Network QUEST.

The project “Climate change mitigation using CCS and CCU technologies (ClimMIT)” targeted
on CO2 capture and use options in Estonia was completed in 2021 with participation of Tartu
University and coordinated by Tallinn University of Technology. The project was funded for 2
years by Estonian and European Regional Funds.

There is no national research funding in Estonia for CO2 storage in 2020–2021. National
research funding was used for CO2 mineral carbonation studies in TalTech-DG (Veetil & Hitch
2020, Li et al. 2019, Wang et al. 2019).

Research on CO2 mineral carbonation and CO2 capture is ongoing in TalTech, Department of
Materials and Environmental Technology (Usta 2019, Sanna et al. 2014, Uibu & Kuusik 2014,
Berber et al. 2020, Yörük et al. 2020). PhD research by M. C. Usta on CO2 mineral carbonation
is funded now by national funding and by the Horizon 2020 project CLEANKER.

144
Table EE: Overview of research topics addressed in PhD thesis K. Shogenov (2015).

& infrastructure

Environmental
Land planning

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
Addressed X - - - - - X X -

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

EE4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Department of Geology (former Institute of Geology), Tallinn University of Technology
(TalTech-DG), is the only research group in Estonia involved in research related to CO2 storage
since 2006, including FP6 EU GeoCapacity and CO2NetEast projects, FP7 CGS Europe and
CO2StoP projects and the ongoing Horizon 2020 ENOS and CLEANKER project.

EE4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

EE4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
TalTechDG is currently involved in the following EU‐funded research projects addressing
aspects relevant for/related to CCS:
- Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe (ENOS), as a linked third party to CO2GeoNet
participating as a partner and, as a partner, in the Horizon 2020 project CLEANKER –
CLEAN clinKER production by calcium looping process (TalTech is coordinator of CO2
transport, use and storage WP7). Two TalTech departments take part – Department
of Geology (coordinator of WP7 and research on CO2 transport and storage) and
Department of Materials and Environmental Technology (research on CO2 mineral
carbonation of waste materials).
- TalTechDG researchers are members of the regional Baltic CCS network BASRECCS,
being presented in BASRECCS Board and organising annual Baltic Carbon Forum.
- In 2016–2017 TalTechDG (TTUGI) participated in the CGS Baltic Seed Money project
(Nordbäck et al. 2017).
- From September 2020 - October 2021 TalTechDG will take part in the seed money
project RouteCCS (Routing Deployment of Carbon Capture, Use and Storage CCUS in
the Baltic Sea Region), coordinated by Uppsala University, organised by BASRECCS
and funded by Swedish Institute.

145
EE5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
EE5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
The project ClimMIT targeted on CO2 capture and use (described in EE4.1) was ordered by
Estonian ministries (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Communication and Ministry of Finance) and the Estonian Research Council.

Interest in CCS increased after decision of Estonia to become climate-neutral by 2050. A

presentation on CCS was made to the Estonian Prime minister during a Conference at the
Estonian Academy of Sciences (2019) by the Rector of Tallinn University of Technology.

The annual Baltic Carbon Forum (BCF) in Tallinn organised by BASRECCS network has been
attracting attention from Estonian media since 2018. Before, during and after the BCF 2019,
Estonian BASRECCS members from TalTechDG gave a series of interviews on carbon capture,
use and storage technologies in TV channels, radio and newsletters available in Russian and
Estonian languages. Some of these interviews you can see, hear and read here: interview 1,
interview 2, interview 3, interview 4, and interview 5.

Additionally, some news presented at the BCF 2019 were reported by Estonian journalists –
see here.

EE5.2 National advocates for CCS

As Estonia does not have national CCS club, the main advocate is regional BASRECCS NGO
(registered in Finland). There is yet no political decision to include CCS into the priority fields.
A decision will be taken after results of CLIMMIT project (cf. EE4.1 and EE5.1) will be reported
in 2021.

EE5.3 Public engagement

None.

146
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in FINLAND (FI; as of 30th June 2021)

FI1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The bedrock in Finland is mainly composed of crystalline and low porosity rock types, while
sedimentary basins suitable for geological storage of CO2 are lacking. Thus, there is no
identified geological CO2 storage potential in Finland (CCSP Carbon Capture and Storage
Programme – Final report). One considered option for storing CO2 is mineral carbonation, i.e.
the reaction of CO2 with calcium and magnesium-bearing silicate minerals to form
carbonates. The large amounts of material involved and the low reaction rates have been a
major hold-up for this technology. Alternatively, Finland may store captured CO2 on an interim
basis and transport it abroad for storage. Currently, the nearest identified and demonstrated
geological storage sites are located in the North Sea and Baltic Sea.

FI2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
FI2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

FI2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

FI2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

147
FI2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
The FINNCAP-Meripori CCS project was an initiative by the Finnish power companies Fortum
and Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) to develop and implement a CCS solution for the Meri-Pori
power plant by 2015. The project had planned to capture and store more than 1.2 Mt CO2/year.
In 2010, TVO withdrew from the project, which was cancelled later that year by Fortum due to
changes in the company strategy and the outcome of various studies.

FI2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

FI3. National policies, legislation and regulations

FI3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
CCS has been identified in the national energy and climate scenarios as one of the technical
potential options in certain scenarios. Also potential for negative emissions is identified in
relation to bioenergy with CCS and forestry operations in general. Lately the political and high
level discussion has been around CCU, H2 production and use and indirect electrification. The
context has mainly been energy intensive industry, and to a lesser extent transportation.
However, there is no consensus yet about what the role of CCS could be in national climate
mitigation. Currently priorities for Finland’s decarbonisation seem to be on other technologies
than CCS (renewables + nuclear) with very strong links to circular economy.

CCS does not have a role in the NECP of Finland, nor does CCU.

FI3.2 National legislation and regulations

Latest revisions implemented in 2013, Finnish Act on Carbon Capture and Storage 416/2012
as amended by Act 127/2013. According to this Act CO2 storage is forbidden in Finland except
for small scale projects with a total intended storage below 100 000 t undertaken for research,
development or testing of new products or processes.

148
FI4. Research
FI4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
No significant CCS projects ongoing with only minor activities regarding bioenergy-CCS.
However, there is major focus on CCU and H2 with several research projects and programmes.
Few examples of projects:

- BECCU: The BECCU project is developing a new value chain from bioenergy production
to sustainable materials by utilising carbon dioxide emissions and clean hydrogen.
EUR 2 million funding by Business Finland, started 2020.
- SOLETAIR: The Soletair direct air capture pilot plant developed by VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland and Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) uses
CO2 to produce renewable fuels and chemicals. The pilot plant is coupled to LUT’s
solar power plant in Lappeenranta. The aim of the project is to demonstrate the
technical performance of the overall process and produce 200 litres of fuels and other
hydrocarbons for research purposes. This concerns a one-of-a-kind demonstration
plant in which the entire process chain, from solar power generation to hydrocarbon
production, is in the same place. 2017–2018 funding by Business Finland.
- GreenE2, an open innovation “ecosystem” for all companies and organisations which
are interested in developing knowhow and business opportunities related to power-to-
X-to-power and products. 2020–2022, funding by Business Finland.

FI4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Geological survey of Finland, GTK.

FI4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

VVT Bioruukki Pilot Centre is a centre for piloting new bio-based products and circular
economy solutions.

FI4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
In 2016–2017, the Geological Survey of Finland, GTK, coordinated the CGS Baltic Seed Money
project (Nordbäck et al. 2017).

From September 2020–March 2022 BASRECCS (NGO registered in Finland, see below) takes
part in another seed money project RouteCCS (Routing Deployment of Carbon Capture, Use
and Storage CCUS in the Baltic Sea Region), coordinated by Uppsala University, organised by
BASRECCS and funded by the Swedish Institute.

149
The BASRECCS network (a network of experts and stakeholders operated as an association,
registered in Finland with secretariat based in Finland), is organising annually the Baltic
Carbon Forum supported by Nordic Energy Research and/or Nordic Council of Ministries
(2018–2020). Since 2013 several members from Finland have been registered and
participated in the network (GTK, VTT, University of Helsinki, Aland University of Applied
Sciences).

LUT University is an active partner in CO2 capture research, participating in the Horizon 2020
CLEANKER project. LUT Energy Systems School is working on the project “P2X Joutseno
industrial scale pilot plant – feasibility study and development of e-fuels production”. The
purpose of the project is to make a thorough feasibility study of an industrial-scale production
plant for carbon neutral fuel production.

FI5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

FI5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
There is low general awareness of the CCS technology and its possibilities. The general
opinion is that CCS is not a feasible option in Finland and in general the failure of the
technology to be widely implemented a decade ago showed that it is not a “winning”
technology.

FI5.2 National advocates for CCS

BASRECCS is a main advocate for CCS in Finland. As it is registered in Finland, Finnish
representatives are always taking part in the BASRECCS board. Peter Molander is one of the
founders and has been the BASRECCS’s secretary network since its foundation.

Among regional advocates are Nordic Energy Research and the Nordic Council of Ministries.

FI5.3 Public engagement

The annual Baltic Carbon Forum supported by Nordic Energy Research and the Nordic Council
of Ministries is the main platform for engagement of industry, policy makers and academia in
CCS activities in the Baltic Sea area including Finland.

150
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in FRANCE (FR; as of 30th June 2021)

FR1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Three sedimentary basins are considered for geological CO2 storage: Paris Basin, Rhone
Valley (mainly the southern part near Marseille) and Aquitaine Basin.

- The Aquitaine Basin has not been thoroughly assessed for storage capacity. Deep
aquifers were mapped but their possible storage volume has not been evaluated.
Depleted reservoirs can be an option for CO2 geological storage with a storage
potential onshore of 560 Mt CO2.
- Storage capacity of the Paris Basin has been assessed globally and through several
regional projects. Most of the evaluated capacities have been estimated by volumetric
calculations with a storage efficiency factor. Injection simulations were performed for
the Lower Triassic sandstone aquifer (East Paris Basin) and for the Keuper aquifer in
two areas: north and south of Paris. A total of 222 Mt CO2 of storage capacity was
estimated for these two areas. There are also onshore depleted hydrocarbon fields
that could provide a CO2 storage capacity estimated at 111 Mt CO2.
- The Rhône Valley has been assessed only in its southern part (Fos-Marseille area).
Four geological structures, mainly onshore, could be suitable to CO2 storage, with a
potential storage capacity of 57 Mt CO2 in total according to initial estimates based on
volumetric calculations. No injection simulation has been performed.

Offshore France has potential for CO2 storage (offshore Aquitaine and offshore
Mediterranean), but these possibilities have not been studied yet.

Ongoing projects are focussed on the two most promising regions: Rhone Valley and South
Paris Basin. One storage pilot was developed in the Aquitaine Basin with injection of more
than 51,000 t CO2 in an onshore depleted gas field from January 2010 to March 2013 (see
details in “Past and current demonstration/pilot projects”). This research project is now
closed and there is currently no operational storage in France.

There is no national CO2 storage atlas available for France.

An exclusive research permit "Ouest Lorraine” for CO2 storage was awarded In October 2011
by the French government to the ArcelorMittal Geo Lorraine (AMGL) as part of the preparation
of a CCS demonstration project at the Florange steel factory in Lorraine (the ULCOS-BF CCS
demonstration project). The permit, valid for a period of 5 years, covered the northern part of
the Meuse and Meurthe-et-Moselle departments, as well as the western part of the Moselle

151
department. The exploration phase aimed at the acquisition of geological data in the field in
order to confirm that the potential areas under consideration are indeed suitable for CO2
storage (as per European directive 2009/31/EC). However, the project was stopped due to
ArcelorMittal’s decision to close the steel plant end 2012.

Earlier, at the time of the preparation of the Lacq Integrated CCS pilot project, there was no
specific legislation for the storage of CO2 as it was being drawn up at European and French
levels. Therefore, a circular from the Ministry of Ecology dated 14 February 2008 specified the
regulatory framework applicable to the CO2 injection and storage in the Rousse depleted gas
field. It was decided that the project should apply under the Mining Code, within the scope of
Article 3-1 applicable to the search for geological formations suitable for storage of
"chemicals for industrial use", and must comply with the provisions relating to injection and
underground storage. The project captured and stored 51 kt CO2 from an oxyfuel industrial
boiler in the Lacq industrial complex from 2010 to 2013.

FR2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
FR2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Below is a summary of past and current pilot and demonstration projects for CO2 capture in
France.

CO2 capture on power plant:

- EDF coal power plant in Le Havre (Normandy region): Post-combustion CO2 capture
pilot in an operational 600 MW coal-fired power plant, inaugurated on 11th October
2013, in operation until 2014. The CO2 contained in the flue gas was 12% (vol) and the
facility could capture up to 25 t CO2/day. The capture technology implemented was
developed by Alstom and DOW Chemical and was called Advanced Amines Process
(AAP).

CO2 capture on H2 production plant:

- Air Liquide H2 production plant in Port-Jérôme (Normandy region; see Pichot et al.
2017): Air Liquide has developed a solution specifically tailored for CO2 capture from
an H2 production plant from natural gas, through Steam Methane Reforming. This
technology, which is called CRYOCAPTMH2, uses cryogenic purification to separate the
CO2. The technology was demonstrated at industrial scale at Port Jérôme in 2015. Air
Liquide is capturing 100 kt CO2/year, which is sold for various CO2 uses.

152
CO2 capture on an industrial boiler:

- TOTAL boiler in Lacq (New Aquitaine region): An existing air-fired boiler was converted
from air-combustion into oxy-combustion. The continuous operation, from 2010 to
2013, of the 30 MWth retrofitted boiler was a success. The captured CO2 was then
transported via an existing pipeline and injected into a nearby depleted gas reservoir.

CO2 capture on steel plants:

- ArcelorMittal steel plant in Florange (Great East region): A demonstration plant of post-
combustion capture, with subsequent transport and storage in a nearby deep saline
aquifer, was planned as part of the ULCOS II programme and submitted to the NER
300 European funding programme supporting the demonstration of a wide range of
innovative low-carbon technologies. However, the demonstration project was
withdrawn at the end of 2012 as a decision was made to close the steel plant. ULCOS
(Ultra-Low CO2 Steelmaking) was a consortium of 48 European companies and
organisations that launched a cooperative R&D initiative to enable drastic reductions
in CO2 emissions from steel production.

- ArcelorMittal steel plant in Dunkirk (Upper France region):

3D − DMX Demonstration project (Funding: H2020)
Launched in 2019, the 3D project has three main objectives in the medium to long term:
1. Demonstrate the effectiveness of the DMX™ process on an industrial pilot
that will capture 0.5 t CO2/hour from steel mill gas by 2021.
2. Prepare the implementation of a first industrial unit at the ArcelorMittal site in
Dunkirk, which could be operational starting in 2025 and that will capture
more than 1 Mt CO2 per year (125 t CO2/hour) to be stored in North Sea
geological storage.
3. Explore the future European Dunkirk North Sea Cluster that should be
operational by the year 2035 with more than 10 Mt CO2 per year captured with
geological storage in the North Sea.
DINAMX − DémonstratIoN et Applications innovantes du DMX (Funding:
Investissements d’Avenir, a national tool promoting investments for the future)
Launched in 2020, the main objective of the DINAMX project is to complete the
demonstration of the DMX process on blast furnace gas and to extend the applicability
of the CO2 capture to other national emitters in order to reduce industrial CO2
emissions in France.

153
FR2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
transport & projects/sites in preparation
There was only one CO2 transport pilot project in operation in France, from 2010 to 2013,
associated with TOTAL integrated CCS pilot in Lacq (New Aquitaine region). The CO2 captured
at the 30 MWth retrofitted boiler in Lacq was compressed (to 27 barg), dried and transported
in a gaseous phase via an existing pipeline to the Rousse depleted gas field, 29 km away,
where it was injected for permanent storage.

FR2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
The only CO2 injection and storage project that has come into operation in France, from 2010
to 2013, was associated with TOTAL integrated CCS pilot in Lacq (New Aquitaine region). The
CO2 captured at the 30 MWth retrofitted boiler in Lacq was transported 29 km away via an
existing pipeline to the Rousse depleted gas field, where it was injected at a depth of 4500 m
for permanent storage. More than 51,000 t CO2 were injected.

Currently, a few areas in France are being studied, e.g. through the following projects, with the
intention of preparing CO2 storage pilots at a later stage:

- STRATEGY CCUS (Funding: H2020): The two areas studied for France are 1) the Paris
basin down to the Orléans area, 2) the Rhône valley, from Fos-Berre/Marseille to Lyon
metropole.
- PilotSTRATEGY (Funding: H2020): The project will advance the geological
characterisation of deep saline aquifers in the Paris basin and propose the
construction of a CO2 storage pilot, in line with the scenarios being elaborated in
STRATEGY CCUS.
- CO2SERRE (Funding: Centre-Val de Loire region): This project is studying the feasibility
of capturing CO2 from a biomass energy plant close to Orléans, use it in nearby
greenhouses and storing the excess amount in a nearby deep saline aquifer (2019–
2023).
- CO2-Dissolved projects (Funding: ANR, Centre-Val de Loire region): This suite of
projects is studying the feasibility of a novel CO2 injection strategy in deep saline
aquifers, combining injection of dissolved CO2 (instead of supercritical CO2) and
recovery of the geothermal heat from extracted brine. The search is currently on to find
an appropriate site to validate co-injection (CO2 dissolved in brine), probably in the
Paris Basin, and the intention is to then move to full-scale demonstration of the
technology.

154
Previously, the following projects were started (Funding: ADEME), but were discontinued in
2012. They both intended to prepare research demonstration projects for CO2 storage in deep
saline aquifers:

- France Nord: This was a Joint Industry Project that grouped four public research
institutes (BRGM, IFPEN, INERIS and Eifer) with seven industrial partners (Total, GDF
SUEZ, Storengy, EDF, Air Liquide, Lafarge and Vallourec). The first step of the France
Nord project was to identify a geological site in the deep saline aquifers of the Paris
Basin providing a storage capacity of at least 200 Mt CO2 during 40 years of injection.
This level of capacity was considered appropriate for a project of industrial size. In
parallel, a review of CO2 emitters in Northern France was performed, and potential CO2
transportation solutions were reviewed. The second step was to implement a CCS pilot
in a CO2 storage target identified previously. An R&D programme was also
implemented, reviewing key elements of the CCS chain. Five potential CO2 storage
targets were analysed in detail, following a regional geological assessment, geological
modelling and dynamic flow simulations (Bader et al. 2014). However, on the basis of
available data, it was not possible during the project to identify a CO2 storage site with
the target capacity of 200 Mt of CO2. As a consequence, the pilot was not
implemented.
- TGR-BF (top gas recycling blast furnace): This project aimed to establish an integrated
demonstrator of CO2 capture, transport and storage on an industrial scale. The project
investigated how to capture the CO2 at the ArcelorMittal’s Florange steel factory in
Lorraine, and the feasibility of onshore storage nearby in a deep saline aquifer. In
October 2011, the French government awarded the research permit, which was aimed
at acquiring locally a new dataset in order to finalise the characterisation (as per
European directive 2009/31/EC) of the storage part of the ULCOS-BF CCS
demonstration project. However, the project was stopped due to ArcelorMittal’s
decision to close the steel plant end 2012.

FR2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
- Lacq Integrated CCS pilot project (New Aquitaine region): This was an intermediate-
scale project that demonstrated an entire integrated CCS process, from emissions
source to underground storage in a depleted gas field. The project captured and stored
51 kt CO2 from an oxyfuel industrial boiler in the Lacq industrial complex, from 2010 to
2013. See details in the above sections.
- ULCOS-BF CCS demonstration project in Florange (Great East region): Studies to
prepare an integrated capture, transport and storage demonstration project at
Florange, in order to reduce emissions from ArcelorMittal’s steel plant. See details in

155
 the above sections. ULCOS-BF was candidate to European NER300 funding, but was
abandoned end 2012 due to ArcelorMittal’s decision to close the steel plant.
- H2020 3D − DMX demonstration project in Dunkirk ( Upper France region): Launched
in 2019, the H2020 3D project has three main objectives in the medium to long term
as detailed in FR2.1.

FR2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Plans for CCUS cluster development in France are presently being prepared as part of the
H2020 STRATEGY CCUS project (2019–2022), coordinated by BRGM. STRATEGY CCUS aims
at supporting the development of low-carbon energy and industry in Southern and Eastern
Europe. The project is focusing on eight regions considered promising for carbon capture,
utilisation and storage (CCUS). Two of them are in France: 1) the Paris basin, from Paris to
Orléans, 2) the Rhône valley, from Fos-Berre/Marseille to Lyon metropole. The aim is to
encourage and support initiatives within each region by producing local development plans
and business models tailored to industry’s needs.

Other recent initiatives for the development of CCUS clusters include the Dunkirk North Sea
CCUS initiative, the Axe-Seine CCUS initiative (from Le Havre to Rouen), and the PYCASSO
initiative in south-west France to develop a cross-border (Spain and France) CCUS industrial
project with CO2 storage in the depleted gas fields around Lacq.

FR3. National policies, legislation and regulations

FR3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC, Stratégie Nationale Bas-Carbone) is France's
roadmap for climate change mitigation policy. It was released in 2015 by the French
Government to steer policy to meet the commitment to reduce national GHG emissions by
75% by 2050 compared to 1990 (Factor 4). The need to develop and deploy CCS was
mentioned.

This strategy was revised in 2020 (SNBC2) to set out the path to carbon neutrality in 2050.
The revised strategy outlines ways to compensate for irreducible anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases with carbon sinks including natural sinks (forest, soils) and anthropogenic
sinks (CCUS). CCUS is anticipated to contribute 15 Mt CO2/year by 2050. It is recommended
to initiate today the development and adoption of disruptive technologies to reduce and if
possible eliminate residual emissions, such as supporting the development of pilot and
possibly commercial units in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and use
(CCU) with the use of CO2 as a raw material for the manufacture of fuels or chemicals.

156
France’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) for the period from 2021 to 2030 was
published in 2020. It does mention CCUS, in coherence with the SNBC2.

By 2050, France expects to reach a level of emissions of around 80 Mt CO2 eq considered as

unavoidable, in particular in non-energy sectors (agriculture and industry). It is anticipated that
in 2050, CCS would avoid 5 Mt CO2/year in industry and about 10 Mt CO2/year of negative
emissions from biomass energy production plants (BECCS), i.e. a carbon sink of 15 Mt
CO2/year.

In conclusion, France is pursuing its efforts to develop the CCUS carbon sink and is gradually
preparing to deploy it on its territory (for more details, see Czernichowski-Lauriol et al. 2021).

FR3.2 National legislation and regulations

In France, the Mining Code, the general regulation of the extractive industries, and the
Environment Code define the regulatory framework for the subsurface industry.
The Directorate for Energy within the DGEC (General Directorate for Energy and Climate)
implements and enforces regulations relating to exploration and exploitation of CO2 storage,
supports experiments in the field of CO2 storage, collects and stores information relating to
the monitored activity, and ensures its dissemination.

The Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the geological
storage of carbon dioxide was transposed into French law in 2010/2011. Guidelines for the
safety of a CO2 geological storage site were published in 2012.

According to the current legislation and regulations, CO2 storage is allowed onshore and
offshore without specific limitations.

FR4. Research
FR4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
In France, two national agencies are funding CCS and CCU projects:

- Agence Nationale de la Recherche - ANR (National Agency for Research),

- Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie - ADEME (Environment and
Energy Management Agency).

Both provide funding through calls for proposals. ANR is the main agency, providing funding
for low TRL research in all scientific fields including CCUS. ADEME focuses on energy and
environmental topics, has a more restricted budget for low TRL research projects, but can

157
provide significant funding for higher TRL projects, such as CCS pilot and demonstration
projects.

The region “Centre-Val de Loire” in central France, around Orléans, is currently funding two
CCUS research projects following calls for research projects mentioning the geological
storage of CO2 from 2018. Industry funding can also support research activities through
specific contracts.

The following table summarises the main national research projects since 2012. Note that
other research activities targeting France are also underway through European projects – see
section FR4.4.

Table FR: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage. Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
Topic /
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Funding
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

source

Social
Well
&

Addressed (x) X X X X X X X X
ANR

EM-HONTOMIN
CO2-Dissolved

CO2-Dissolved

CO2-Dissolved

CO2-Dissolved
PILOTE CO2-

INJECTION

MISS CO2
Dissolved
CO2-Diss

CGSµLab

SIGARRR
H-CUBE

COPTIK
CIPRES

CIPRES

GEFISS
FISIC

ADEME
GeCO SampA
IMPACTCO2

IMPACTCO2
CO2Leak

CO2Leak

CO2Leak

CO2Leak
REX CO2

Aquifer-

Aquifer-

Aquifer-

Aquifer-
SENSE

Region
CO2SERRE

CO2SERRE

CO2SERRE

Centre-Val-
GEOCO2

GEOCO2

GEOCO2

de Loire

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

158
FR4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
Major research institutes:

− BRGM
− IFPEN
− Institut National de l’EnviRonnement industriel et des rISques, INERIS
− Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers, Centre National de la Recherche
scientifique, INSU-CNRS
− Mines de Paris
− Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, IPGP

Other research institutions

− Université de Lorraine
− Université de Pau
− Laboratoire Navier, École des Ponts ParisTech, etc.

FR4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

France is one of the five founding member countries of the ECCSEL ERIC European Research
Infrastructure on CO2 capture and storage. The current research facilities available for access
by worldwide scientists are listed below. See website for more details:

ECCSEL storage facilities in France:

− BRGM BIOREP reactor, Orléans

− ANDRA Underground Research Laboratory, Bure
− INERIS CATLAB shallow CO2 Injection Site, Catenoy
− IFPEN GasGeochem Laboratory, Rueil-Malmaison
− IFPEN ESCORT mobile Equipment for Soil CO2 ORigin Tracking

ECCSEL transport facilities in France:

− INERIS CO2 Transport Platform, Mont La Ville

ECCSEL capture facilities in France:

− EDF’s CO2 Capture Pilot in Le Havre (currently unavailable)

Note that CNRS is joining ECCSEL in 2021, bringing additional innovative research facilities.

159
FR4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
Active and recently completed projects include:

− 3D (2019–2023) − DMX Demonstration in Dunkirk (Funding: H2020)

− CHEERS (2017–2023) − Chinese-European emission-reducing solutions
− DISCO2 STORE (2021–2025) − Discontinuities in CO2 storage reservoirs
− ECCSELERATE (2020–2022) − Ensuring the long-term sustainability of the ECCSEL
ERIC Research Infrastructure
− ENOS (2016–2020) − Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe
− LEILAC2 (2020–2025) − Low emissions intensity lime and cement 2: demonstration
scale
− PilotSTRATEGY (2021–2026) - CO2 geological pilots in strategic territories
− SECURe (2018–2021) − Subsurface Evaluation of Carbon capture and storage and
Unconventional Risk
− STRATEGY CCUS (2019–2022) − Strategic planning of regions and territories in
Europe for low-carbon energy and industry through CCUS
− SUN2CHEM (2020–2023) − Novel photo-assisted systems for direct Solar-driven
redUctioN of CO2 to energy rich CHEMicals

FR5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

FR5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Awareness of CCS is low in France. Currently there is no intense public debate, probably due
to the absence of concrete storage projects in the country. Some local resistance around the
first pilot in Lacq occurred, but this was managed successfully by TOTAL. More interest on
CCS may arise due to the new objective of carbon neutrality and the necessity to compensate
irreducible CO2 emissions by carbon sinks (SNBC2 2020).

FR5.2 National advocates for CCS

The French Club CO2 stimulates the exchange of CCUS information and initiatives between
industry, research organisations and public authorities, since its creation in 2002.

160
FR5.3 Public engagement
None since 2012.

The GEFISS research project (Extended governance for sub-soil engineering), funded by ANR
from 2018 to 2022, has the objective to build knowledge about governance in the field of
subsurface engineering (geothermal energy, energy storage, CO2 storage...). The project
brings together a multidisciplinary team made up of experts from the human and social
sciences, earth sciences, public debate, as well as industry representatives.

161
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in GERMANY (DE; as of 30th June 2021)

DE1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Depleted natural gas fields and saline aquifers are the most favourable options for the
geological storage of CO2 in Germany (May et al. 2002). Potential areas for CO2 storage in
saline aquifers had been mapped for the German mainland (onshore) in 2008–2011 within the
project “Storage Catalogue of Germany” as a joint effort of BGR and the state geological
surveys of Germany (Reinhold & Müller 2011). The catalogue contains nationwide thematic
maps of 18 reservoir and barrier rock units of Paleozoic and Mesozoic age assessed for their
potential suitability according to the criteria depth, (net) thickness and lithology, integrated in
a GIS-based map-application. Further, BGR had performed several regional CO2 storage
capacity assessments in Germany, based on the evaluation of the volumetric storage potential
of formations or individual trap structures. In addition, BGR estimated the CO₂ storage
capacity of hydrocarbon fields in Germany. In summary, due to their large extent, deep saline
aquifers have the largest potential for CO2 storage in Germany (especially in the North German
Basin). Their storage potential was estimated to be in the range of 20-115 Gt (Knopf & May
2017; see below for details). The storage capacity of depleted gas fields in Germany was
estimated to be about 2.75 Gt (May 2007). The storage potential of depleted oil reservoirs is
about 0.13 Gt.

Recent research activities have mainly focussed on the German North Sea region including
the mapping of evaluated reservoir and barrier rock units (Bense & Jähne-Klingberg 2017),
following the approach used in the “Storage Catalogue of Germany” project: In most areas of
the German North Sea prospective reservoir rock units are overlain by prospective barrier rock
units.

For the purpose of method comparison, a nationwide capacity assessment based on the
results of Reinhold & Müller (2011) and Bense & Jähne-Klingberg (2017) was performed using
a regional aquifer based approach to estimate storage capacity (Knopf & May 2017). This
approach did not consider individual trap structures. Instead, it was based on the regional
extent of potentially suitable reservoir rock units considering the accessible pore space of
aquifers. This assessment yielded a total CO2 storage capacity for Germany (on- and offshore)
in the range given above.

All values given above represent volumetric capacities that do not consider any geotechnical
or socioeconomic constraints that will reduce the volume of realistically usable storage
capacity. Especially in the North of Germany, some German federal states have prohibited

162
geological CO2 storage by law, thus significantly reducing the currently usable storage
potential in Germany. No application for site exploration or storage permit has been filed since
the implementation of the national CO2 Storage Act. The time for submission of storage
application according to the federal CO2 storage law has expired at the end of 2016 so that
the socioeconomic storage capacity is currently zero in German territory (see also DE3.2).

DE2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
DE2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Capture on…

…power plants: Capture pilot plants were built and operated on the following power plants:
- Schwarze Pumpe (Vattenfall/Linde; oxyfuel, lignite-fired; in operation until 2014),
- Wilhelmshaven (Uniper/FLUOR; PCC , hard coal-fired; in operation until 2014),
- Staudinger (Uniper/Siemens; PCC, hard coal-fired; in operation until 2013),
- Heilbronn (EnBW/atea Anlagentechnik GmbH; PCC, hard coal-fired; in operation until
2014),
- Niederaußem (RWE/Linde; PCC, lignite-fired; in operation since 2009): At a 1,000 MW
unit of the Niederaußem power plant an amine scrubbing pilot plant was built on for
solvent testing and process optimisation (maximum capture rate: 300 kg CO2/h). In
addition to solvent and capture process optimisation, various utilisation options for
the captured CO2 have been investigated including e.g. production of algal biomass
(RWE-Algenprojekt), syn gas (project CO2RRECT), polyurethane (project Dream
Production), methanol/power-to-gas (project MefCO2) and dimethyl ether (project
ALIGN-CCUS).

…steel mills: Duisburg, North Rhine Westphalia (Thyssen Krupp/project Carbon2Chem): A

steel mill gas separation and purification pilot for CCU application such as syngas
production is operated at the Thyssen Krupp integrated iron and steel mill.

…cement plants: Mergelstetten, Baden-Württemberg (Buzzi Unicem – Dyckerhoff/

HeidelbergCement AG/ SCHWENK Zement KG/Vicat; project Catch4Climate): An
oxyfuel pilot plant (semi-industrial scale) for clinker production is currently under
construction at the SCHWENK Zement KG cement plant.
Within the LEILAC 2 project (2020–2025), a demonstrator for CALIX’s direct separation
technology will be built at the HeidelbergCement plant in Hannover, foreseen to
capture about 100,000 t CO2/year.

163
…ammonia plant: Dormagen, North Rhine Westphalia (Ineos/Covestro): CO2 from an ammonia
plant is used for polyol production (initiated in project DreamProduction, commercial
polyol plant in operation since 2016).

DE2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

DE2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
The only CO2 injection and storage project that has come into operation in Germany is the pilot
project at Ketzin, Brandenburg, operated by Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ. From
June 2008 until August 2013 about 67 kt CO2 were injected in a saline aquifer at a depth of
630 to 650 m. CO2 injection at Ketzin was funded and investigated by various national and
international research projects (e.g. CO2SINK, CO2ReMoVe, CO2CARE, CO2MAN, COMPLETE),
that focussed on predicting, monitoring and modelling the subsurface processes and the
migration of the CO2 plume. Well abandonment and dismantling was completed and on-site
research activities were finished in December 2017. In May and June 2011 1,515 t CO2
captured at the lignite-fired power plant Schwarze Pumpe (CO2 purity >99.7%) were injected,
during other times food-grade CO2 was used for injection. In autumn 2014 CO2 back-
production of about 240 t CO2 from the storage reservoir was successfully demonstrated. The
Ketzin pilot site was operated under the supervision of the Landesamtes für Bergbau, Geologie
und Rohstoffe Brandenburg (LBGR) according to the Federal Mining Act.

CO2 injection facilities were built at Maxdorf, in the Altmark gas field. There the combination
of CO2 storage and enhanced gas recovery was planned to be tested in a pilot project. The
accompanying research project CLEAN (Kühn & Münch 2013) starting in 2008 and the entire
initiative were terminated in 2010, as the mining authority of Saxony-Anhalt did not decide
about the application for an injection permit.

No pilot or demonstration projects are currently in operation or in preparation.

164
DE2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
In October 2009 an exploration permit (for the natural resource brine) had been granted to
Vattenfall Europe for the site Birkholz-Beeskow (as part of the EEPR Jänschwalde
demonstration project), but exploration never started. The Jänschwalde demonstration
project was stopped in December 2011 and Vattenfall returned the exploration licence for
brine to the mining authority.

RWE DEA planned to build an IGCC plant near Cologne and to transport CO2 captured at this
plant by pipeline to North Frisia for injection and storage. An exploration permit for brine was
granted for the foreseen storage area. In autumn 2009 the initiative was dismissed due to
public opposition before exploration of the area started.

At present no full-chain CCS project are in operation or in preparation.

DE2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The feasibility for clustering CO2 from different emitters in various parts of Germany was
studied, for example, within the EU-funded projects CO2EuroPipe (2009–2011), COCATE
(2010–2012) and ALIGN CCUS (2017–2020). In the CO2EuroPipe project, CO2 transport by
dedicated CO2 pipelines/pipeline networks or by barge on inland waterways from the
Rhine/Ruhr area and the area around Hamburg to harbour cities at the North Sea was detailed
for different amounts of captured CO2.

In view of preparing the 5th PCI list, to be adopted in October 2021, the CO2 liquefaction and
buffer storage in Wilhelmshaven is a candidate PCI project for cross-border CO2 transport
networks.

DE3. National policies, legislation and regulations

DE3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The national Climate Action Plan 2050 was adopted by the Federal Government in 2016
stating Germany's long-term goal to become greenhouse gas-neutral by 2050. Also, emission
reduction targets for 2030 for the individual sectors energy supply, buildings, transport,
industry and business, agriculture and forestry are given in the plan. One key aspect of the
plan is the restructuring of the energy sector, in particular the further expansion of renewable
energy supply and the gradual phasing out of electricity generation from fossil fuels. As about
38% of the industrial emissions directly result from production processes in the basic
materials industry, it will be necessary to lower these emissions, which cannot be avoided, by
other measures such as implementation of new technologies, a carbon circular economy, or
by CCS.

165
In October 2019, the Climate Action Programme 2030 was adopted comprising the four
components: 1) carbon pricing, 2) burden reduction for citizens and industry, 3) sector-
specific measures (e.g. increasing energy efficiency and optimising or substituting production
processes in industry sector), 4) non-sector-related measures such as increasing the
production and use of H2 as well as carbon storage and use: A national H2 strategy has been
approved on 10th June 2020 in which production and use of green H2 is the key element while
the use of “CO2-neutral” (i.e. blue or turquoise) H2 is seen as an interim solution until green H2
is available in sufficient amounts. CO2 storage and/or use are considered as measures to
reduce otherwise unavoidable industrial emissions. For emissions that cannot be used,
offshore storage is suggested. To support the implementation of these technologies, the
federal government intends to support R&D in CCU (and CCS) technologies and initiate a
dialogue process with stakeholder groups.

Germany’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) adopted on 10th June 2020 lists the
further development of opportunities to use CO2 within the framework of CCU/CCS as part of
the measures to promote innovation and competitiveness.

DE3.2 National legislation and regulations

The transposition of EU Directive was completed and the national CO2 storage law
(Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetz – KSpG) has been approved by the parliament on 17th
August 2012 and came into force on 24th August 2012. According to this demonstration law
geological storage of CO2 was allowed in Germany for projects involving storage of up to
1.3 Mt CO2 per year. Overall, the annual amount of CO2 stored in Germany should not exceed
4 Mt CO2. A simplified permitting procedure is possible for research storage sites with an
overall amount of injected CO2 up to 100 kt/site. In addition to limiting amounts of CO2 stored,
the KSpG set a deadline according to which applications for site exploration and storage
permits could only be filed until 31st December 2016. Competent authorities according to the
EU Directive are the state authorities as well as BGR and the German Environment Agency
(UBA). The state authorities are the permitting bodies while UBA and BGR are given a
reviewer’s role in the permitting process. BGR is also responsible for providing geological
information for capacity assessments, in consultation with the state geological surveys, and
for keeping a registry.

The KSpG allows the individual states to prohibit geological storage of CO2 within certain
regions of their territory (so-called “Länderklausel”). As a result, CO2 storage is at present
prohibited in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen and Schleswig-Holstein. In their
evaluation report (according to § 44 KSpG), that was presented and discussed in the
parliament in December 2018, the German federal government stated that they see currently
no need for modifying the KSpG. In consequence, CO2 storage is currently not permissible in
Germany due to the expired application deadline.

166
The KSpG also provides the legal basis for planning assessment procedures for CO2 pipeline
installations as well as for third-party access to transport and storage infrastructure.

In the German Federal Mining Law, a differentiation is made between "freely mineable" and
"freehold" subsurface resources. The latter are the landowner’s possession, whereas “freely
mineable” resources are not part of his freehold. Concessions for the use/mining of “freely
mineable” resources are currently filed for a specific location for an unlimited time period. A
storey-wise use of the subsurface is not foreseen. CO2-based EGR or EOR operations might
be permitted and regulated under the Federal Mining Law.

DE4. Research
DE4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Research related to CO2 capture, transport and storage is funded in Germany by:
i) Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung – BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and
Research) and
ii) Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie – BMWi (Federal Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy).

Main research programmes were/are:

- 7th Energieforschungsprogramm (BMWi; 09/2018 - present): Research topics include

CO2 technologies for the energy transition focussing on CO2 capture and use.
- Programme “CO2 avoidance und use in basic industries” (BMWi; since 2021):
Advancing and upscaling CO2 capture is addressed together with CCU and CO2
cycling technologies and CO2 transport options on a regional, national and European
scale.
- Programme CO2-Reduktionstechnologien (COORETEC) (BMWi; 2004 -11/2016):
Predominately research on technologies for improving power plant efficiency and on
technologies for the separation and transport of CO2 were funded.
- Framework programme FONA (Forschung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung/Research for
Sustainable Development; BMBF) that started in 2015: Regarding CO2 technologies,
FONA measures concentrate on CO2 capture and use, e.g. a) measure CO2Plus
(2016–2019), b) measure Carbon2Chem (2016–2026), c) measure CO2-WIN (2020–
2023). The following FONA measures included aspects related to CO2 storage:
i) Programme “Geotechnologien” (BMBF/DFG): From 2005 to 2014 33 projects were
funded dealing with different aspects of CO2 storage, the results of which were
collated and assessed in the project AUGE (2012–2016).
ii) Programme “GEO:N – Geoforschung für Nachhaltigkeit“, subprogramme „Nutzung
unterirdischer Geosysteme“ (2017–2020) addressing specific research gaps with
high relevance for various subsurface technologies.

167
 - The Deutsche Allianz für Meeresforschung/German Marine Research Alliance (DAM)
founded in 2019 will fund research on “Marine Carbon Sinks in Decarbonisation
Pathways” in one of their missions. Complementary to that, BMBF recently launched
a call on terrestrial methods for CO2 removal from the atmosphere including BECCS
and DACCS.

Table DE: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on
CO2 storage.
Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well

Addressed (x) (x) x x x x x x x

CCS Chancen
(2010-2013),

(2011-2014),
(2014-2021)

(2015-2018)

(2015-2018)

(2014-2017)

(2011-2014)

(2014-2017)

(2015-2018)

(2014-2017)

(2012-2014)
COMPLETE

COMPLETE

COMPLETE
MONACO

MONACO
examples

CO2MAN
CLUSTER

CLUSTER

CLUSTER
Project

TUNB

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

Projektträger Jülich (PtJ), the German national funding agency, is a partner in the ERA NET
Co-fund “Accelerating CCS Technologies (ACT)” (2016–2021), a tool established under the
Horizon 2020 programme. The ACT initiative aims to facilitate RD&D and innovation within
CO2 capture, transport, utilisation and storage by funding research projects for specific topics.
Currently, the funding agencies of 16 countries, regions and provinces are partners in ACT.

168
DE4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
As research funding in Germany has been focussed very much on CO2 capture and use rather
than storage, relatively few research institutions are currently investigating aspects related to
CO2 storage. Examples are

- Deutsches GeoForschungszentrum Potsdam (GFZ),

- Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR),
- Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR),
- Forschungszentrum Jülich/Institute of Energy and Climate Research Systems
Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE)
- Fraunhofer ISI – Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation.

DE4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

CO2 storage:

- None. The pilot injection site at Ketzin has been the only research site in Germany for
CO2 injection and storage (see DE2.3).
- For studying CO2 migration through the subsurface and soil and assessing potential
environmental impacts as well as for testing near-surface monitoring methods,
various sites in Germany have been used where CO2 naturally emanates from the
ground, e.g. at Laacher See.

CO2 capture:

- Post-combustion: Niederaußem capture test centre for amine scrubbing (see also
DE2.1).
- Alternative capture technologies such as carbon or chemical looping or membrane
technologies have been investigated at small to medium scale test sites, e.g. at the
Technical University of Darmstadt and at Stuttgart University.
- A clinker cooler pilot plant, a building block for implementing CO2 capture in cement
plants with oxyfuel firing, was built and tested at the Heidelberg Cement plant in
Hannover (project CEMCAP).
- Carbon2Chem project: CO2 separation and purification for CO2 use is tested and
optimised at the Thyssen Krupp integrated iron and steel mill in Duisburg (see also
DE2.1).
- A demonstrator for the “direct separation technology” will be built at the
HeidelbergCement plant in Hannover as part of the LEILAC2 project (see also DE2.1).

169
DE4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
BGR has been/is currently involved in the following EU-funded research projects addressing
aspects relevant for/related to CCS:

- Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe (ENOS),

- 3D geomodelling for Europe (3DGEO-EU),
- Low emissions intensity lime and cement 2: demonstration scale (LEILAC2),
- Advanced carbon capture for steel industries integrated in CCUS (C4U).

GFZ is currently involved in the following EU-funded research projects addressing aspects
relevant for/related to CCS:

- Subsurface evaluation of CCS and unconventional risks (SECURe),

- Pressure control and conformance management for safe and efficient CO2 storage -
Accelerating CCS technologies (Pre-ACT).

DE5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

DE5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
In general, knowledge in the general public about the CCS technology is limited (e.g.
Schumann et al. 2014, Dütschke et al. 2016). CCS is often perceived as a risk technology with
a risk potential similar to nuclear waste storage (Dütschke et al. 2015). In consequence, the
public acceptance of CCS in Germany is low. Discussions on the potential roles and benefits
of CCS and CO2 storage have been resumed to some degree in the public in the last few years,
e.g. by the National Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech 2018). Also, the German
Chancellor Angela Merkel stated in May 2019 at the Petersberger Klimadialog that
(geological) storage of CO2 is one option to be considered to compensate future CO2
emissions that cannot be avoided easily otherwise (Merkel 2019). For industry, the increasing
price of CO2 emission allowances is becoming a game changer turning CCS/CCU into a
considered technological option for CO2 emission reduction.

170
DE5.2 National advocates for CCS
The liberal democrats (FDP) are the only party is the German parliament proposing CO2
storage for climate protection. Further, CCS/CCU has been included recently in the discussed
portfolio of CO2 emission reduction technologies necessary for achieving Germany’s climate
protection targets by several initiatives e.g. by the National Academy of Science and
Engineering (“acatech”) (e.g. acatech 2018) and the Energy Systems of the Future (ESYS)
Initiative of the German Academies of Sciences (e.g. ESYS 2019).

DE5.3 Public engagement

Analysing the public acceptance of different CCS chain scenarios, Dütschke et al. (2016)
identified a strong impact of the considered emitters on the scenario perception: Scenarios
with capture on industrial processes or biomass power plants received a significantly higher
acceptance in their studies than capture on coal-fired power plants. Whereas the three former
initiatives for large-scale CO2 storage (Beeskow/Neutrebbin by Vattenfall, North Frisia by RWE,
Altmark by GDF Suez) provoked strong public opposition, operation of the injection pilot site
at Ketzin by GFZ was well accepted by the local stakeholders. The reasons for these
differences are seen in the smaller scale and limited duration of CO2 injection, the credibility
of the operator and an early, open, transparent and continued engagement of local
stakeholders at Ketzin (Dütschke et al. 2015).

After the closure and abandonment of the Ketzin site, stakeholder engagement occurs
currently on a more general level, e.g. in stakeholder discussion fora organised by acatech or
the ESYS initiative (see DE5.2) or by providing information on webpages and answering to
journalist enquiries.

According to the Climate Action Programme 2030, the German government will promote
research and development into the storage and use of CO2 and will launch a dialogue on these
technologies with all stakeholder groups.

171
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in GREECE (GR; as of 30th June 2021)

GR1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
At the current stage, there is no national CO2 storage atlas or CO2 storage license/permit
granted in Greece. Research studies that investigate potential sites for CO2 storage remain at
a theoretical level providing estimations based on model calculations. The major regions for
CO2 storage include the Mesohellenic Trough (Western Macedonia, Greece) and Western
Thessaloniki Basin (North Greece), as well as the offshore Prinos oil and South Kavala gas
field (North Greece).

The Mesohellenic Trough is an Oligocene to M. Miocene mollasic basin in North Greece.

Research estimations indicate that there are two saline formations (Eptachori and
Pentalofos), which can serve as potential sites for CO2 storage (Koukouzas et al. 2009). The
Eptachori formation (U. Eocene- L. Oligocene) is composed mostly by clastic sedimentary
rocks (conglomerates, sandstones; Koukouzas et al. 2019) and presents 1 to 1.2 km thickness
(Ferrière et al. 2004, Kilias et al. 2015), whereas the Tsotylli formation (L.-M. Miocene)
presents ~ 1500 m thickness (Zelilidis et al. 2002) composed mainly by marls accompanied
by conglomerates and sandstones (Koukouzas et al. 2019). Research estimations indicate
total storage capacity of ~ 216 Mt CO2 (RWE 2006). Based upon the research results of the
GESTCO (2004) project (Christensen & Holloway 2004), the saline reservoir rocks of Prinos oil
field (North Greece) provide the potential for storing an additional amount of 1,350 Mt CO2.
The West Thessaloniki basin is an on-shore basin located in North Greece composed by
Tertiary sedimentary saline aquifers that can store up to 605 Mt CO2 (Koukouzas et al. 2011,
Christensen and Holloway 2004). The Alexandria basin is located in the North Aegean and has
a CO2 storage capacity of ~ 35 Mt CO2 in saline aquifers (RWE 2006).

There are six well studied oil and gas fields in Greece which may serve as CO2-storage sites
(Tasianas & Koukouzas 2016, Hatziyannis 2009, Rütters et al. 2013). These include the Prinos
(producing field; North Greece), South Kavala (exhausted field; North Greece), Katakolo-East
Katakolo (non-producing field; South Greece), Kalirachi (non-producing field; North Greece)
and Epanomi (non-producing field; North Greece) fields. The Prinos oil field (~ 260 m
thickness) exhibits the appropriate geological properties (porosity, permeability, mineralogical
composition and cap-rock formation) that can justify the implementation of CO2-storage
technologies (RWE 2006, Koukouzas et al. 2019). Theoretical estimations indicate that the
Prinos oil field can store up to 19 Mt of CO2 (IEAGHG 2005). The total of CO2 storage potential
of the six hydrocarbon fields is 70 Mt (Tasianas & Koukouzas 2016, Hatziyannis 2009, Rütters
et al. 2013).

172
Several Greek sites have been proposed for CO2 storage through carbon mineralisation. These
include ultramafic rocks, basaltic rocks and sandstones (Kelektsoglou 2018). However, only
few studies provide significant estimations on the amount of the potentially stored CO2.
Basaltic outcrops from the Volos region (Microthives and Porphyrio localities; Central Greece)
exhibit the appropriate physicochemical properties (porosity, SiO2-saturation, mineralogical
composition) for CO2 mineralisation (Koukouzas et al. 2019). Theoretical calculations indicate
82,800 and 27,600 tons of maximum CO2 storage potential (Koukouzas et al. 2019). These
calculations take into consideration the volume of the basaltic outcrop, the average porosity,
as well as the specific gravity of the CO2. Based on similar calculation models Petrounias et
al. (2020) suggest storage capacity of ~ 18 × 105 tons of CO2 within the Klepa-Nafpaktia
sandstones (Central-Western Greece) through mineral carbonation processes.

Figure GR: Potential sites for CO2 storage in Greece (Oil and gas fields: Prinos: 17 Mt CO2; South Kavala:
4 Mt CO2; Kataklolo-East Katakolo: 3.2 Mt CO2; Kallirachi: 35 Mt CO2; Epanomi: 2 Mt; Saline
aquifers: Mesohellenic Trough: 216 Mt CO2; W. Thessaloniki basin: 605 Mt CO2; Prinos:
1,350 Mt CO2; Alexandria: 35 Mt CO2; CO2 mineralisation: Microthives: 82.8 kt CO2; Porphyrio
basalts: 27.6 kt CO2; Klepa-Nafpaktia sandstones: 1.8 Mt CO2).

173
GR2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
GR2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Ptolemais V is a project in preparation stage that includes a new power plant, which is
constructed on CCS ready technology. This power plant will be prepared to have all the
necessary premises and essential equipment for effective CO2 capture and storage (Vatalis
et al. 2014).

GR2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

GR2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

GR2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

GR2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

GR3. National policies, legislation and regulations

GR3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
In Greece, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has set strategic targets on the National
Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) until 2030. These targets include:
a) 55% reduction of the GHG emissions compared to those of 2005, which will further
contribute to the transition towards a climate neutral economy until 2050,

174
b) at least 35% of the gross final energy consumption will correspond to renewable energy
resources (exceeding the European target for 32%); the Greek strategic plan aims to
incorporate renewable energy resources into the means of transport (1/3 of cars will be
electric),
c) lower energy consumption in 2030 compared to that of 2017,
d) strategy for the full decarbonisation of the electricity production by 2028, providing support
to specific regions during the post-lignite period,
e) design of a Master Plan within 2020 that will provide a complete development roadmap for
the post-lignite period,
f) promotion of circular economy that will contribute to mitigation of climate change.
Supplementary actions include the target of the Athens Municipality for 40% reduction of the
GHG emissions (2.03 Mt CO2) until 2030 according to the Climate Action Plan of 2017 (Skoula
2017).

GR3.2 National legislation and regulations

Greece has adopted the EU Directive on CCS in 2011 (FEK 2011, 2013, Shogenova et al. 2013).
The Official Gazette No Β 2516/7-11-2011 permits the implementation of CO2 storage
processes in geological formations. It applies to CO2 storage in geological formations
including the sea borders. It also includes geological formations with an estimated storage
capacity of more than 100 kt for research and development or testing of new products and
processes. According to the Official Gazette (FEK 2011) CO2 storage is not allowed in the
water column and underground aquifers. The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate
Change is the competent authority in Greece providing to the Minister the right to designate
the areas that are acceptable for CO2 storage.

GR4. Research
GR4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
None.

GR4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

In recent years, there is increasing interest and involvement of some Greek research and
academic institutes in CO2 capture, storage and utilisation through several EU-funded
research projects. Research institutions, involved in CO2 storage research in Greece, are the
following:

175
 - Centre of Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH)
- Chemical Process and Energy Resources Institute (CPERI)
- Center for Renewable Energy Resources and Saving (CRES)
- Hellenic Survey of Geology & Mineral Exploration (HSGME)

GR4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

GR4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
CERTH is currently involved in the following CCS-related EU‐funded research projects:

- CO2 Geological Pilots in Strategic Territories – PilotSTRATEGY,

- Strategic Planning of regions and territories in Europe for low-carbon energy and
industry through CCUS – STRATEGY CCUS,
- Low Emissions Intensity Lime and Cement 2: Demonstration Scale – LEILAC2,
- Innovative management of COAL BY-PROducts leading also to CO2 emissions
reduction – COALBYPRO,
- Accelerating CCS technologies as a new low-carbon energy vector – ACT.

GR5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

GR5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
In Greece, there is limited knowledge in the general public on CCS topics. The first research
that aimed to record public awareness was conducted by Pietzner et al. (2011). The outcomes
of this research indicate that 76.5% of the public had never heard about CCS, whereas only
23.5% had heard a little or quite a bit about CCS.

GR5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

176
GR5.3 Public engagement
Results of the study conducted by Pietzner et al. (2011) on public engagement indicate that
the public perception was slightly supportive on implementing CCS technologies as measures
to mitigate climate change (Pietzner et al. 2011). In addition, perceptions of Greek society on
CCS technologies were strongly associated with their attitudes to natural gas production and
storage. Detailed investigation on CCS public awareness was conducted in the framework of
EU-funded project STRATEGY CCUS (Oltra et al. 2020). The perceptions were measured using
questionnaires as tools to select and assess data. The stakeholders participating in the
research comprised politicians, researchers and educators, people from the industrial sector
and influencers. Most of the interviewees were quite supportive on CCUS. However, a part of
interviewees was quite sceptic regarding the readiness level and the effectiveness of CCUS.

177
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in HUNGARY (HU; as of 30th June 2021)

HU1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Storage Capacity assessment has been going on since the mid 2000s. The target structures
are depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and deep saline aquifers. Coal storage is not anymore on
the agenda. There has been no significant progress in the aquifer storage assessment since
2013. The level of knowledge concerning these aquifers is still quite low, with only low
resolution regional data available. The estimated storage capacity in 11 sub-basins of the
Pannonian Basin is 700-800 Mt CO2.

Depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs have been thoroughly studied. The selected reservoirs are
similar to those reported in 2013, however the level of knowledge has increased considerably.
Assessment is carried out by the Mining and Geological Survey of Hungary.

At all potential sites well logs reaching or crosscutting the reservoirs have been reprocessed
and reinterpreted focusing on the reservoir and seal. Based on the reinterpreted well logs
petrophysical parameters (i.e. effective porosity, permeability) have been re-estimated using
Monte Carlo simulation. The estimate storage capacity in 12 selected potential sites is
approximately 100 Mt CO2.

Furthermore, geochemical reactivity modelling as well as worst case leakage scenario

modelling has been carried out for the potential sites in order to support future risk
assessment. Some of these scenarios and modelling have been published and presented (e.g.
Szabó et al. 2018). Cap rocks of potential storage formations have been subjected to detailed
mineralogical analysis and laboratory experiments (e.g. Szabó et al. 2016). The reactivity of
old well cements in the presence of CO2 at reservoir conditions has also been modelled (e.g.
Szabó-Krausz et al. 2020).

Results have not been presented in National Storage Atlas. No exploration has been licenced
for CO2 storage so far.

178
HU2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
HU2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

HU2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

HU2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
CO2 injection in hydrocarbon fields with the purpose to increase the production of oil and gas
(CO2-driven enhanced oil recovery or CO2-EOR) has been going on in Hungary since the 1970s.
Several projects including Nagylengyel, Budafa, Lovászi, Szank DK, Kiskundorozsma and
Pusztaföldvár have successfully demonstrated the operability of these activities in sandstone,
carbonate and metamorphic reservoirs resulting in 6-13% increase in cumulative production
(see also Szelényi 2015).

HU2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

HU2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

179
HU3. National policies, legislation and regulations
HU3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
National Energy and Climate Plan is a technology-neutral approach, does not refer to specific
technologies. It sets emission reduction targets as well as desired share of renewables. CCS
is included in the planning. However, the deployment of CCS/CCUS technology is expected
after 2030.

National Energy Strategy includes CCS as a possible option to decarbonise energy industries
as well as emission intensive industries (i.e. chemical industry, cement industry, bioethanol).
There are several scenarios modelled with and without CCS. The strategy states that
decarbonisation scenarios without CCS are extremely expensive. The strategy estimates that
the technology will only be mature and ready for wide deployment after 2030.

National Action Plan for Utilisation and Reserve Management of Energy-Related Mineral
Resources provides an insight in the available storage capacities concerning depleted
hydrocarbon and aquifer storage (numbers similar to 2013 report; Rütters et al. 2013).
Additionally, the potential availability of recently actively producing reservoirs is also
considered. Certain storage-related risk assessment priorities are also discussed.

National Clean Development Strategy, finally accepted on 5th September 2021, includes
CCS/CCU as one of the so far immature but potential technologies that can massively
contribute to GHG emission reduction.

2nd National Climate Change Strategy explicitly refers to CCS/CCUS as one of the potential
tools of decarbonisation. The strategy points out four main activities that should be carried
out in relation with CCS/CCUS, which are the following:

1) Geological assessment should be continued to find suitable structures for storage.

2) Detailed cost-benefit analysis should be made for the national application

possibilities for CCS/CCUS.

3) Potential industrial applications of captured CO2 should be studied.

4) The potential of combining biomass with CCS (negative emissions) should be

assessed.

180
HU3.2 National legislation and regulations
The implementation of the EU CCS Directive took place in May 2012 coming into force in July.
The Directive is integrated in the National Mining Act and there is a Governmental Decree
controlling its enforcement. There have not been major revisions of the national legislation.
Some minor amendments are regularly made. There are no restrictions except for the general
ones that are valid for other type of sub-surface activities. The competent authority is the
Mining and Geological Survey of Hungary.

HU4. Research
HU4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Currently the storage capacity assessment project carried out by the Mining and Geological
Survey is the only research project related to CCS in Hungary. It includes some modelling
activity mostly related to geochemical models. The topic is not excluded from energy/
emission reduction related programmes, but currently there is no other known activity going
on.

Table HU: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on
CO2 storage.
Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed X - - - - - (x) - -

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

HU4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

There has been only one CCS-related research topic going on 2015–2020 in Hungary which
was focusing geological storage of CO2. Major universities (Eötvös University, Budapest,
Technical University of Budapest), and research institutes were involved in the research.

HU4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

181
HU4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
None.

HU5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

HU5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
There is no scientific survey dealing with the public awareness of CCS technology available in
Hungary. General knowledge of CCS is present only at stakeholder level. General public is well
aware of climate change but not of CCS.

HU5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

HU5.3 Public engagement

None.

182
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in ICELAND (IS; as of 30th June 2021)

IS1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Iceland lacks the geology required for storage of CO2 as a supercritical fluid in sedimentary
basins. An alternative method relies on in-situ mineral storage of CO2 via its injection into
reactive rocks such as mafic or ultra-mafic rocks for rapid mineralisation (e.g.
Snæbjörnsdóttir et al. 2020). Mineral carbonation can be promoted by the dissolution of CO2
into water before or during its injection. No cap rock is required when injecting water charged
with CO2, as it is denser than CO2-free water. As such, it does not have the tendency to migrate
upward to the surface. By dissolving CO2 into water before or during its injection, solubility
trapping is achieved immediately (Sigfússon et al. 2015), and the bulk of the carbon is trapped
in carbonate minerals within two years of injection at 20-50°C (Matter et al. 2016, Pogge von
Strandman et al. 2019).

By provoking the mineralisation of the injected CO2 into carbonate minerals such as calcite
(CaCO3), dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) or magnesite (MgCO3) via its injection into reactive host-
rocks, the injected carbon is permanently fixed and there is a negligible risk of it returning to
the atmosphere.

Approximately 90% of the bedrock in Iceland is basalt indicating that theoretically much of
Iceland could be used for injecting CO2, fully dissolved in water, into basaltic rocks. The most
feasible formations are the youngest basaltic formations, found in the active rift zone. These
basalt formations consist of lavas, hyaloclastic (glassy) formations and associated
sediments younger than 0.8 million years covering about one third of Iceland. Thus, CO2
storage in basalts is now considered to be a promising option and the feasibility of CO2
storage in basaltic rocks is currently investigated in Iceland and demonstrated as part of the
Carbfix project.

The storage potential of such systems located onshore in Iceland, the largest landmass above
sea-level at the mid-oceanic ridges, has been estimated by direct measurements of CO2 bound
in carbonates in drill-cuttings from three basalt hosted geothermal fields. Although these
carbonates are precipitated over large timescales (10,000-300,000 years), the results provide
insights into the permeability and active porosity of natural systems and indicate that young
and fresh basalts can naturally store over 100 kg CO2/m3 (Wiese et al. 2008). Applying these
estimates to the most feasible formations in Iceland reveals a theoretical storage potential
estimate of up to 2,500 Gt CO2 or 2.5 · 106 Mt CO2 (Snæbjörnsdóttir et al. 2014).

183
Carbfix has recently launched its Mineral Storage Atlas that highlights suitable geological
formations for mineral storage worldwide. Altogether the global storage potential has been
estimated at >100,000 Gt CO2.

The licensing procedure for mineral storage projects in Iceland is still being formed. Despite
this, two commercial carbon storage projects have been implemented under geothermal
exploration licenses and are subject to environmental impact assessment.

IS2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
The development of the Carbfix technology, i.e. injection of CO2 dissolved in water into the
subsurface where it reacts with basaltic rocks to form solid carbonate minerals, has been
ongoing since 2007 with first field testing occurring in 2011. Initially, the concept was proven
with commercially bought CO2 which could be supplied to the system in a controlled manner.
As the Carbfix capture technology was further developed, a stream of CO2 from the Hellisheidi
geothermal power plant was available providing opportunities for more long-term testing of
surface equipment. In 2012, an integrated approach of capturing, injecting, and monitoring the
fate of injected CO2 was demonstrated (Carbfix1) enabling decisions to scale up the injection
of separated CO2 from the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant (Carbfix2) in two steps in the
years 2014 and 2016. Carbfix joined forces with the Swiss clean tech company Climeworks in
2017 with a pilot injection of CO2 captured directly from the atmosphere with the capacity of
about 50 t CO2/year (project Arctic Fox). Demonstrations of 4 kt/year injection of CO2 from
the atmosphere will commence in 2021 (ORCA).

IS2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

IS2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

184
IS2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
Carbfix 1 pilot injections (TRL3 to 7): Following the study of natural analogous, extensive
laboratory testing and modelling of all components of the Carbfix value chain between 2007
and 2012 (e.g. Stockmann et al. 2008, Gudbrandsson et al. 2008, Flaathen et al. 2009, Gysi &
Stefansson 2011, Aradóttir et al. 2012), a series of experiments was carried out in the vicinity
of the Hellisheidi power plant. After a successful verification of the injection system in late
2011 (beta testing TRL 3-5), the pilot injection was commenced in January 2012 with the
injection of 175 tonnes of CO2 (e.g. Snæbjörnsdóttir et al. 2017; Figure IS). The CO2 was stored
in a 30 m3 reservoir tank and co-injected with locally sourced groundwater. The injected gas
was mixed with the down flowing water via a sparger at a depth of 340 m ensuring complete
dissolution of the CO2 in the down flowing water as the mixture was carried down the well via
a mixing pipe to a depth of 540 m.

Figure IS1: Geological cross section of the Carbfix injection site. Blue indicates lava flows and orange
indicates hyaloclastic (glassy) formations. The CO2-H2S gas mixture used in the second
injection was separated from other geothermal gases at the power plant and transported via
a gas pipe to the injection site where it was dissolved in water from well HN-01 within the
injection well HN-02 (modified from Snæbjörnsdóttir et al. 2017).

185
At 540 m depth the CO2 charged fluid was released into the subsurface rocks in the 20-50°C
hot reservoir. The carbonation process was quantified using reactive and non-reactive tracers,
and isotopes, which revealed the rapid mineralisation of the injected CO2 with over 95% of the
injected gas mineralised within two years (Matter et al. 2016, Pogge von Strandman et al.
2019).

Following the CO2 injection, a mixture of 75% CO2 and 25% H2S from the Hellisheidi power
plant were successfully injected under the same conditions, demonstrating for the first time
the whole carbon capture, transport, injection, and permanent storage chain for the injected
gases (Snæbjörnsdóttir et al. 2017). Furthermore, this injection experiment demonstrated that
the Carbfix method can be used for injection of gas-mixtures and impure gas mixtures, adding
to the applicability of the method.

Carbfix seawater pilot (TRL3-5): Carbfix has developed the scientific basis for using seawater
to dissolve CO2 prior to injection, significantly expanding the applicability of the technology in
coastal areas, areas where fresh water availability is limited, and for offshore injection. An
onshore pilot injection of 1000 t CO2 dissolved in seawater will be carried out in Q2 in 2022.

IS2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
Carbfix 2 – industrial operations (TRL7 to 9): Following the success of the initial Carbfix
project in Hellisheidi, the project was upscaled starting in 2014 in a hotter reservoir, with a
stepwise increase in the amount of gases injected (Gunnarsson et al. 2018, Sigfússon et al.
2018, Gíslason et al. 2018). The acid gases (CO2 and H2S) are captured directly from the
geothermal power plant exhaust stream by its dissolution into pure water (condensed steam
from the power plant turbines), in a scrubbing tower. The resulting gas-charged water is
injected to about ~800 m depth into the basaltic reservoir at temperatures of ~250°C. Since
the injected gas-charged fluid is acidic, it is strongly undersaturated with respect to the
primary and secondary minerals of the basaltic reservoir (Clark et al. 2018).

The dissolution gradually increases the pH of the gas-charged fluid to a range suitable for CO2
mineralisation, provoking mineralisation of the injected gases some distance away from the
injection. Therefore, to date there is no sign of decreasing system injectivity since the initiation
of the CO2 injection in 2014. The injection has been monitored via sampling of nearby
monitoring wells (Figure IS2).

186
Figure IS2. Schematic cross section of the Carbfix2 injection site. Gas-charged and effluent water are
injected separately to a depth of 750m, then allowed to mix until they enter the reservoir at a
depth of 1900-2200 m. This combined fluid flows down a hydraulic pressure gradient to
three monitoring wells located 984, 1356, and 1482 m from the injection well at the reservoir
depth.

The system captures and stores ~1/3rd of the CO2 emissions from the Hellisheidi power plant
at present, or about 15,000 t annually, aiming for injection of over 90% of the CO2 from the
plant in the near future (Sigfússon et al. 2018). To date, over 65,000 t CO2 have been captured
and injected from the Hellisheidi power plant. At present, >50% of the injected CO2 is fixed as
carbonate minerals within months of its injection in this upscaled system. (Clark et al. 2020).
Furthermore, full economic analysis of the current ongoing Carbfix injections at Hellisheidi
shows the overall cost of carbon capture and storage to be ~$25 US/t CO2, far lower than
alternatives (Gunnarsson et al. 2018).

187
Carbfix Nesjavellir Pilot Injection (TRL5 to 7): Building on the experience of the successful
CO2 and H2S capture and storage at the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant, the same
approach is planned to be implemented at a second plant, the Nesjavellir geothermal plant. A
pilot capture and injection of ~1000 tons CO2/year will start early 2022 as part of the H2020
backed GECO project.

Carbfix-Climeworks Cooperation (TRL5 to 7 and TRL7 to 9): Carbfix joined forces with the
Swiss clean-tech company Climeworks (CW) in 2017 as a part of the H2020 funded Carbfix2
project to explore the option of combining direct air capture (DAC) technology with injection
and mineralisation of CO2. At that time, the two technologies had already been demonstrated
in their operational environment, CW had demonstrated its technology at TRL 5, and Carbfix
was already being demonstrated as a complete system at TRL 7. The integrated Carbfix-CW
demonstration moved the CW technology from TRL 5 to TRL 7. The collaboration has resulted
in the first commercial DACCS chain with the Orca plant and on-site injection in a dedicated
injection well.

The Arctic Fox: In October 2017, a single DAC capture unit, the Arctic Fox, with capture
capacity of 50 t CO2/year was installed at the Hellisheidi site where the current Carbfix
injection is taking place. The DAC technology developed by CW is based on an alkaline-
functionalised adsorbent using heat energy through a temperature-vacuum-swing process
and developed by Climeworks, has been installed at the Hellisheidi site, where current Carbfix
injection is taking place. Figure IS3 provides an overview of the Climeworks DAC cycle. The
air-derived CO2 stream is then transferred to the Carbfix injection system where it is injected
and mineralised, achieving a negative emission pathway (Gutknecht et al. 2018). Two modes
of operation were tested. First, the CO2 was transported at near atmospheric pressure to the
suction end of the Carbfix capture plant where it was dissolved alongside non-condensable
gases from the power plant prior to re-injection. Secondly, the DAC-derived CO2 was
compressed to a pressure of 12 bar-g and introduced to the CO2-loaded injection water exiting
the Carbfix capture plant. This ensured total injection of CO2 since the Carbfix Capture plant
at Hellisheidi has less capture efficiency.

The ORCA: The up scaling of the Climeworks DAC technology in combination with the Carbfix
re-injection technology, the ORCA project, is currently ongoing, with injection capacity of about
4,000 t CO2/year bringing the TRL level of a combined system of the two technologies to TRL 9
(Figure IS3). The capture and storage systems were commissioned in Q3 2021. For the ORCA
project, the injection system from Carbfix1 was updated and additional pressure sensors
installed at selected depths in the mixing pipe to enable better monitoring of the injection
system. Monitoring pressure in the mixing pipe enables early detection of incomplete gas
dissolution enabling rapid response by either adjusting the mixing depth or water to gas ratio.
Additionally, the wellhead from Carbfix2 was amended to enable up to 10 bar-g pressure in
the well head annulus. This was done to ensure CO2 injection into injection wells with low
injectivity.

188
Figure IS3: Schematics of the CO2 adsorption/desorption process.

Carbfix SORPA pilot (TRL3-7): An injection experiment is being carried out to assess the
feasibility of CO2 mineralisation in older and less permeable basalts using the Carbfix
technology. The basalts are located outside of the active rift zone. The CO2 dissolved in water
is being captured from a methane plant at a landfill near Reykjavík. The pilot involves injection
of about 3500 t of dissolved CO2/year and started in Q3 2021, with planned upscaling to
3,700 t/year.

CO2SeaStone pilot (TRL4-7): The first field scale demonstration of Carbfix using seawater,
instead of fresh water, as CO2 solvent and carrier. The pilot demonstration will be carried out
in Reykjanes, onshore SW-Iceland in a saline system. The validation of mineralisation using
seawater will unlock large coastal and offshore regions where fresh water is a scarce
resource. The CO2 for the pilot will be transported from Switzerland in a Swiss-funded project
called DemoUpCarma, in which CO2 will be capture at biogenic sources and transported in
40 ft containers to Iceland.

Silverstone CCMS (TRL9): Full-scale carbon capture and mineral storage (CCMS) project at
the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant. A new capture plant will be designed and constructed
which is optimised for CO2 dissolution under ~10 bar pressure. The project is funded by the
EU Innovation Fund small scale projects.

IS2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The Coda Terminal will be a highly scalable onshore carbon mineral storage hub in SW-Iceland
with an estimated overall storage capacity of 500 Mt CO2. The port will be equipped to receive
large quantities of CO2 transported by ship from industries in Northern Europe. The Coda
Terminal will enrich and de-risk geological CO2 storage, in particular by dramatically reducing

189
the capital investments and the liabilities associated with conventional storage projects,
which rely on injection of CO2 into depleted hydrocarbon sites or deep saline aquifers.
The Coda Terminal project builds on established industrial-scale operations of the Carbfix
technology in Iceland involving injection of CO2 dissolved in water into basalt formations.
Significantly lower storage costs make CO2 transportation by ships economically viable over
large distances. The Coda Terminal will cooperate with experienced maritime operators using
innovative solutions in tank design. The Coda Terminal is expected to be able start
commercial operations in 2025. The project has strong support from the government and
local authorities.

IS3. National policies, legislation and regulations

IS3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The Icelandic government has announced plans to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030 with
respect to 1990 levels. The target will be met with transition to renewables in the transport
sector, recovery of wetlands and notably, increased carbon storage in biomass and geologic
storage in basalts. For emissions that fall under direct government responsibility (not ETS),
Iceland has pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2040.

Carbfix features prominently both in the climate action plan and roadmap to carbon neutrality.
In June 2019, the government of Iceland, OR - the mother company of Carbfix, and the heavy
industry (Alcoa, Elkem, Century Aluminum, Rio Tinto and PCC) signed a trilateral Declaration
of Intent to explore whether the Carbfix process is technologically and economically viable to
reduce CO2 emissions from industrial facilities in Iceland, which notably account for 40% of
the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

IS3.2 National legislation and regulations

The Icelandic government is in the process of transposing the EU CCS Directive into national
law (see draft legislation on Government Consultation Portal). As the directive mainly focuses
on methodology for storage of CO2 rather than injection of CO2 leading to mineralisation,
guidance documents on monitoring etc. are not well suited for the Carbfix technology. To
ensure the compatibility of the Carbfix method with the EU CCS Directive, DG Clima was
consulted before the bill transposing the EU CCS directive into national law was prepared. The
bill clearly stipulates that avoided CO2 emissions that are injected into the subsurface for
permanent mineral storage on the basis of the Carbfix method are deductible within the ETS
system.

190
The bill was adopted on 11th March 2021 with a bi-partisan support from all Parties in the
Parliament. With the bill the geological storage of CO2 in Icelandic territory is permitted,
whether it being permanent storage under the CCS method or mineralisation of CO2 under the
Carbfix method. The monitoring and financial requirements for the method are currently being
elaborated.

National laws and regulations Corresponding international laws and regulations

Planning Act and Planning Regulation: Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of
Planning Act no. 123/2010 and Planning Regulation CO2 (CCS Directive)
no. 90/2013 as amended no. 578/2013 and no.
903/2016

Laws and regulations on Environmental Impact Directive 2014/52/EU on Environmental Impact

Assessment: Assessment amending the EIA Directive
Assessment Act no. 106/2000 and Evaluation 2011/92/EIA
Regulation no. 660/2015 as amended no. 713/2015
and no. 1069/2019

Laws and regulations on buildings and structures:
Civil Engineering Act no. 160/2010, Building
Regulation no. 112/2012 together with the
amendments no. 1173/2012, 350/2013, 280/2014,
360/2016, 666/2016, 722/2017, 669/2018 and
1278/2018, Regulation on construction permits no.
772/2012 as amended no. 1068/2019 and no.
378/2020
London protocol on marine pollution, adopted in
1996 to modernise and eventually replace its
forerunner, the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter, 1972 (London Convention)

Laws and regulations on hygiene and pollution Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
prevention and of the Council establishing a scheme for
Act no. 7/1998 on hygiene and pollution prevention, greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
Regulation no. 550/2018 on emissions from
business operations and pollution control, Draft bill
on CO2 injection as an addition to laws and
regulations on hygiene and pollution prevention

191
IS4. Research
IS4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
The Icelandic Research Fund is the main national body that supports research & development
in CCS. Funding opportunities offered by the IRF include the Technology Development Fund,
the Climate Fund and The Strategic Research and Development Programme 2020–2023
Societal Challenges. Subsurface mineralisation and capture from the local aluminium- and
silicon production industry comprises the majority of CCS-related research in Iceland.
Table IS: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed (x) - - X X X X (x) X

CO2SeaStone

CO2SeaStone

CO2SeaStone

CO2SeaStone

CO2SeaStone
examples

Elfstone

Elfstone

Elfstone
Project

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

IS4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Research on carbon capture and storage via carbon mineralisation is a growing research topic
in Iceland. The topic has been studied at the two largest universities in Iceland; the University
of Iceland and Reykjavík University, and ISOR (Iceland GeoSurvey) has been largely involved
with research projects on the topic. Furthermore, Iceland University of Arts has annually
featured Carbfix in lectures.

IS4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

192
IS4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
- Carbfix2
- NORDICCS
- CO2REACT
- Carbfix2
- S4CE
- GECO
- SUCCEED
- Silverstone

IS5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

IS5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
In contrast to many places across Europe, the level of awareness and public acceptance in
Iceland of carbon capture and storage is high. Likely reasons for its wide acceptance are that
the Carbfix method is based on processes that already occur in nature, the rapid
mineralisation, the elimination of the risk of CO2 leakage, and the technology being born from
the renewable geothermal energy sector rather than the oil and gas sector. The results of a
Gallup survey conducted in 2019 confirmed that two out of three were in favour of Carbfix
whereas less than 4% were opposed. These results show that once the public is informed,
public acceptance of the technological advances proposed within the project is expected to
be high. Surveys on Icelandic brands within the energy and utility sector carried out quarterly
by MMR, market and media research, further support the high level of public acceptance of
the Carbfix CO2 mineral storage technology. Measurement of the Carbfix brand, recently
added to the survey, shows a significant rise in positivity towards the brand in Q3 of 2020
compared to Q2 with rating rising from 5.6 to 6. Executives, directors, managers and senior
officials are the most positive towards Carbfix. Key stakeholders in Iceland have expressed
similar attitudes towards CO2 mineral storage as shown by the aforementioned polls and
surveys. The Carbfix technology plays an important role in reducing CO2 emissions from the
energy and industry sector’s in Iceland’s Climate Action Plan.

IS5.2 National advocates for CCS

Carbon mineral storage has no shortage of individual advocates. However, when it comes to
organised groups or advocacy networks, Carbfix relies on foreign entities via membership in
the Global CCS Institute, the CCUS Projects Network and the Negative Emissions Platform.

193
IS5.3 Public engagement
The following highlights a few activities in the recent past but is not a complete list:

- The European Researcher's Night (Vísindavaka), a large science and technology fair,
took place in Reykjavik on 30th September 2019. Carbfix had a dedicated booth which
featured samples of calcite, pyrite, a drill core, a microscope to look more closely at
the samples, VR glasses that showed the injection well and a video for more detailed
information. In addition to the dedicated Carbfix booth, Sandra Ósk Snæbjörnsdóttir
also gave a 20 min presentation to the visitors on the potential of carbon mineral
storage. The evening was a great success with over 5600 visitors attending.
- Carbfix has received immense support and attention in Iceland and abroad, receiving
numerous prestigious international awards and attracting large media attention from
the likes of BBC, in Sir David Attenborough‘s documentary Climate Change: The Facts,
Netflix in Zac Efron’s Down to Earth series, and HBO in the documentary Ice on Fire,
produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio, ZDF (Germany), AFP (France), National
Geographic (US), Weather Channel (US) and the China Global Television Network.
- A Geothermal Exhibition is located at the Carbfix demonstration site in Iceland. It
provides an interactive educational experience for school groups and the general
public. Visitors are offered guided tours of the facility to learn about geothermal energy
and the Carbfix mineral storage technology. The Geothermal Exhibition has recently
been ranked among the most visited destinations in Iceland, receiving around 100,000
visitors annually. A showroom dedicated to Carbfix was recently opened at the
exhibition.
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel and various political and economic advisors to the
Chancellor visited the Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant on 20th August 2019.
Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Reykjavík Energy, and
Bjarni Bjarnason, CEO of Reykjavík Energy, welcomed the chancellor, followed by a
long-table discussion. Edda Sif Pind Aradóttir, coordinator of CarbFix2, introduced the
CarbFix process and its link to Germany through the H2020 funded GECO project. The
chancellor showed great interest in CarbFix and the opportunity to apply the process
in different locations throughout the world.

194
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in IRELAND (IE; as of 30th June 2021)

IE1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
An all-island Ireland assessment completed in 2008 (SEI/EPA 2008) identified storage
potential in the almost-depleted Kinsale Head natural gas field in the Celtic Sea Basin, with a
calculated practical capacity of 330 Mt CO2. Permo-Triassic basins in the Irish Sea with similar
geology to the East Irish Sea gas and oil field (UK) have theoretical capacity, and large but
unquantified storage potential exists in the Mesozoic basins on the western shelf. A joint
Geological Survey Ireland –British Geological Survey project (Bentham 2015) sought suitable
closures and practical capacities for the Permo-Triassic basins in the Irish Sea as well as
potential sites with similar Cretaceous geology to the Kinsale Head gas field.

PSE Kinsale Energy Limited, the previous operator of the Kinsale Head gas field, conducted
an assessment of CO2 storage potential of the depleted "A" sand reservoir. A capacity of
286 Mt CO2 was calculated to fill the main field structures, considering Kinsale Head and
Ballycotton as a single storage complex, over a 60-year injection phase to return the field to
its original pressure.

Ervia, the commercial semi-state utility company, is currently conducting a feasibility study
into potential for CO2 storage at the depleted Kinsale Head gas field, including reservoir
studies, reprocessing seismic and assessing legacy wells.

There has been no application for a CO2 storage licence.

IE2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
IE2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Ervia is a partner of the REALISE project consortium (REALISE – Demonstrating a Refinery-
Adapted Cluster-Integrated Strategy to Enable Full-Chain CCUS Implementation, which aims
to demonstrate CO2 capture at oil refineries.

195
IE2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
transport & projects/sites in preparation
Ervia has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Equinor, to jointly explore the potential
to export CO2 from Ireland to the Northern Lights CO2 storage project in Norway.

IE2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
Ervia is conducting a feasibility study into potential for CO2 storage at the depleted Kinsale
Head gas field, including reservoir studies, reprocessing seismic and assessing legacy wells.

IE2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
See IE2.5.

IE2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Ervia has obtained a Project of Common Interest status for the potential of a CO2 capture
cluster of two CCGT power stations and an oil refinery in the Cork region, combined with
pipeline transport and storage at the depleted Kinsale Head gas field.

IE3. National policies, legislation and regulations

IE3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The Government’s 2015 Energy Policy (White) Paper and National Mitigation Plan (2017)
recognised CCS as a potential bridging technology that could support the transition to a low
carbon economy while allowing an appropriate level of gas fired power generation to balance
intermittent renewable generation.

The Climate Action Plan (2019) refers to the need to support further research into the
feasibility of CCS deployment in Ireland, and specifically, Action 33 of the Plan mandates the
establishment of a CCS Steering Group. This inter-departmental group has been convened
and will oversee the development of CCS policy, monitor the progress of CCS research and
proposals for projects, evaluate investment requirements, where applicable (including for
Ervia’s Kinsale Head project) and make recommendations on developing statutory and
regulatory provisions, if required.

196
IE3.2 National legislation and regulations
Statutory Instrument No. 575 of 2011, European Communities (Geological Storage of Carbon
Dioxide) Regulations 2011, transposes Directive 2009/31/EC by prohibiting storage of CO2 in
amounts greater than 100 000 t in the territory of the State, its exclusive economic zone and
on its continental shelf.

The CCS Policy and Project Feasibility Steering Group is mandated to make recommendations
to Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications on what policy considerations
would be appropriate with respect to implementation of CCS in Ireland.

IE4. Research
IE4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Geological Survey Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland have funded national research in
CCS. These are generally through open calls rather than specific targeted calls. GSI has
conducted general storage capacity research in the past.

Table IE: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage.
Storage capacity

Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex

impact

Social
Topic

Well

Addressed X - - - (x) - X - -
Project examples

GSI-BGS Irish Sea

Sequestration in
iCRAG offshore

crushed basalt

Ervia Kinsale
reservoir
basins

soil

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

197
IE4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
Geological Survey Ireland GSI has funded a capacity assessment of saline aquifers in the Irish
Sea (jointly with BGS; Bentham 2015), and a “short call” project on crushed rock/soil
sequestration at University College Dublin (McDermott 2018). The Irish Centre for Research in
Applied Geosciences (iCRAG) has recently hosted two research projects, funded by Science
Foundation Ireland, re-using hydrocarbon exploration data from the offshore North Celtic Sea
and Slyne basins to identify potential storage sites. Ervia (commercial semi-state body) is
funding its own investigations at Kinsale gas field.

IE4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

IE4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
Ervia is a partner of the H2020 REALISE project consortium, which aims to demonstrate CO2
capture at oil refineries.

IE5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

IE5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Public awareness of CCS in Ireland is low, reflecting the lack of any major developments.

IE5.2 National advocates for CCS

There is no national body or lobby group for CCS, although, for example, bodies such as the
Irish Academy of Engineering have supported its potential for Ireland (IAE 2016).

IE5.3 Public engagement

Local public engagement by Ervia around their project area in Cork – reported as favourable
but results not published.

198
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in ITALY (IT; as of 30th June 2021)

IT1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Saline aquifers: Up to now evaluation of storage capacity has been performed only in the
context of research projects. Since the role of CCS in the Italian energy strategy is still quite
marginal, there has been no substantial national public investment in capacity assessment.
Capacity estimations in both siliciclastic and carbonate formations have been performed
mainly by OGS within the EU GeoCapacity project (Donda et al. 2011, Civile et al. 2013). Some
other authors published also some studies (Buttinelli et al. 2011, Amorino et al. 2005,
Catelletto et al. 2013, Colucci et al. 2016). All the results are based mainly on public data,
available from the Ministry of the Economic Development in the framework of the project
“Visibility of Petroleum Exploration Data in Italy (ViDEPI)” and on additional databases
available from different authors and institutions. This dataset includes about 1650 well data
and 55,000 km of 2D multichannel seismic profiles acquired since 1957 by several oil
companies for hydrocarbon exploration.

The main Italian sedimentary basins, i.e. the Apennine foredeep and the Adriatic foreland, host
the best potential sites, which are characterised by thick accumulations of siliciclastic
sediments and carbonates. The potential reservoirs comprise deep saline aquifers hosted in
both carbonate and sandstone formations. The latter reveal a theoretical storage capacity
ranging from 30 to more than 1,300 Mt CO2 (Donda et al. 2011). Based on the assessment
performed and considering data quality and uncertainty, these areas could potentially contain
the entire volume of CO2 emitted in Italy for at least the next fifty years.

Additional potentially suitable areas have been identified by Civile et al. (2013) in carbonate
successions. These areas consist of deep saline aquifers, except in the Malossa–San
Bartolomeo area, where depleted oil and gas fields reveal suitable conditions for CO2 storage.
The potential reservoirs were generally recognised within the fractured shallow marine
carbonate platform successions. Among them, the most suitable formations are those
composed of dolostones and represented by the Late Triassic–Lower Liassic carbonate
platform succession, recognised in the Po Plain, along the Adriatic Sea and in the Sicily
Channel. These studies provide an overview of the main characteristics of potential sites
suitable for CO2 geological storage in Italy; more detailed analyses are needed to characterise
the storage systems at regional and site scale. This is particularly relevant in the case of
carbonate rocks, where the permeability and porosity are strongly related to diagenetic
processes, dolomitisation and tectonic fracturing.

199
Hydrocarbon fields: Hydrocarbon production in Italy is associated with the three main
tectono- stratigraphic systems: 1. biogenic gas in the terrigenous Pliocene-Quaternary
foredeep wedges; 2. thermogenic gas in the thrusted terrigenous Tertiary foredeep wedges;
3. oil and thermogenic gas in the carbonate Mesozoic substratum. The potential storage
capacity of 14 depleted fields, which represent only a small proportion of the total number of
Italian hydrocarbon fields, has been estimated as: in gas reservoirs: 1.6 Gt - 3.2 Gt; in oil
reservoirs: 210 Mt - 226.5 Mt (see the final report of the EU GeoCapacity project).

CO2 storage in hydrocarbon fields has always been hampered by the public acceptance,
especially after the May 2012 Emilia earthquake, when rumours began to circulate that the
earthquake was somehow related to hydrocarbon exploitation. This idea was based on the
levels of extraction and re-injection from an oil field located proximal to the earthquake
epicentre and on the conclusions of a study that stated that a relationship could not be ruled
out (ICHESE 2014). Lively debates, especially following the May 2012 earthquake, highlight
that separating natural earthquakes from induced seismicity is crucial for the public
acceptance of any subsurface usage in Italy.

Coal fields: The main coal basin in Italy is the so called “Sulcis Coal Basin”; it is Eocene in age
and located in SW Sardinia. At present it hosts the last active Italian coal mine, the “Monte
Sinni u/g” mine, now in a definitive closure phase. Preliminary studies on coals extracted from
the mine showed promising developments for ECBM technologies here. Storage capacity of
CO2 by ECBM was estimated in the EU GeoCapacity project as 42 Mt CO2 for the onshore area
and 29 Mt for the offshore area giving a total estimated storage capacity of 71 Mt.

Despite the studies performed so far, a comprehensive atlas as those developed for CO2
storage in other European countries and, for example, Australia and the US does not exist yet.

CO2 storage exploration licenses or storage permits have not been awarded until now by the
competent Ministry. ENI, the more important company in Italy for energy, has recently
announced the project of a national hub in Ravenna province, in the Northern Adriatic Sea, so
giving a new impulse to CCS concept and technologies in Italy.

IT2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
IT2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
ENEL launched in 2011 an innovative CO2 capture plant at the Federico II coal power plant
located in Cerano, Municipality of Brindisi. It consisted of four units with a capacity of
660 MWe each (total capacity 2640 MWe). The pilot plant was designed for a nominal gas flow

200
rate of 15,000 Nm3/h and to treat 10,000 m3 of fumes per hour from the Federico II coal plant,
separating out 2.5 t CO2 hourly and up to 8,000 t/year, equivalent to the CO2 absorbed by
around 800,000 trees. The capture plant costs EUR 20 million to complete. The European
Union provided a grant of EUR 100 million from its European Recovery Programme for Energy
towards the Brindisi pilot project and for preliminary work on the Porto Tolle plant. The capture
plant was closed after two years for investments issues.

In June 2020, ENEL announced that starting from January 2021, the Federico II power plant
will undergo to a conversion process to a highly efficient gas plant, reaffirming the
commitment to the energy transition towards a power plant free from fossil fuels.

Within the CLEANKER project, supported by the EC H2020 programme, several cement
industries in collaboration with research centres in Italy and other European countries, are
developing a calcium-looping technology to capture CO2 in the cement production process.
The same project considers how to develop a full chain CCS application in Northern Italy.

IT2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
There are neither demonstration nor pilot projects for CO2 transport in Italy.

IT2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
In Italy up to now, no demonstration or pilot projects have been carried out with CO2 injection
into geological formations. Presently the ENI initiative to develop a storage hub in the Ravenna
areas is expected to lead to one or more pilot projects. In the past, there have been some
significant initiatives:

The Zero Emission Porto Tolle (ZEPT) Project covered the design, procurement and
construction of a demonstration CO2 capture plant as well as the detailed site
characterisation, to verify the feasibility of the injection and storage of CO2 in a safe and
verifiable manner. The project was funded by the European Energy Programme for Recovery
(EEPR) during the period 2009–2013. The plan was to install the CO2 capture demonstration
plant on an ultra-supercritical 660 MWe unit of the Porto Tolle power plant, which will be co-
firing coal and biomass. The post-combustion capture unit was designed to treat a flue gas
flow rate of 0.8 million Nm3/h, equivalent to a net electrical output of 250 MWe. The
demonstration plant would separate about 1 Mt/year CO2 (capture efficiency >90%) to be
transported by offshore pipeline to a deep saline aquifer located about 100 km SE of the power
unit. The ZEPT Project (Porto Tolle) has been suspended due to the decision of the Italian

201
State Council to annul the environmental permit for the Porto Tolle power plant. Given this,
and notwithstanding all the efforts put in place, the project promoter reported to the EC that it
was not possible to mitigate the permitting and financial risks and decided to start termination
of the contract. The request for termination was accepted by the EC (effective on 11th August
2013).

ENI – Feasibility study and pilot project of injection into a depleted hydrocarbon field in
cooperation with Enel, which was testing a variety of different chemical solutions to capture
CO2 at Brindisi power plant with the aim of finding the most effective one. Brindisi's project
was expected to use a post-combustion method, in which liquid solvents such as ammonia
would have washed the exhaust gases after the coal is burned, so as to remove the CO2.
Operational capture tests started at Brindisi in June 2010. In mid 2011 the CO2 was liquefied
and briefly stored in tanks to be transported to the ENI/ Stogit storage site. The CO2 pipeline
to the Stogit field was planned to be in operation from 2012. After an initial testing period in
March 2011, the project was expected to be operational by 2012. However, the project didn’t
proceed to the operational phase.

IT2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
ENI recently announced the new “Ravenna hub” that will create one of the largest CCS
centres in the world. The depleted offshore gas fields of the middle Adriatic will be used for
CO2 storage and the existing infrastructures still operational at present will be employed,
together with new CO2 capture systems at onshore ENI power plants and other industrial
plants in the vicinity.

IT2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Apart from the “Ravenna hub” project mentioned above there are no industrial initiatives in
Italy regarding clusters of emitters connected to single or multiple storage sites.

IT3. National policies, legislation and regulations

IT3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
In the past, the role of CCS in the Italian mitigation strategy has been scarcely considered and
the relevant ministries have only supported a limited number of research activities on the
technology. In 2019, the Italian Government approved the Integrated National Energy and
Climate Plan. Within this framework, CCS is viewed as a measure needed to be drawn up to
accompany the transformation of the energy system towards the 2050 zero emission target,

202
both in the electricity and industrial sectors, to bring the energy system in line with the pathway
to a complete decarbonisation by 2050.

IT3.2 National legislation and regulations

The EU CCS Directive has been transposed in Italy in 2011 (legislative decree 162/2011),
however the implementation regulation is still underway.

Competent authority for providing permits for exploration and exploitation of CO2 storage
resources is the Italian Ministry of Economic Development (MISE). According to Italian law,
the subsurface is owned by the Italian State.

IT4. Research
IT4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
MIUR (Ministry of University and Research): Since 2014 OGS has been granted an important
funding to develop research and infrastructures on CCUS by MIUR: The ECCSEL NatLab Italy
project has allowed the setting up of two important natural laboratories, in Panarea (offshore)
and in Latera (onshore). Both laboratories play a key role in the study of CO2 migration, leakage
and impacts on ecosystems, offering the possibility to test and calibrate new sensors and to
develop innovative monitoring techniques. The ECCSEL Natlab Italy has been recently
supported by two other important projects, again funded by MIUR: IPANEMA and IPANEMA
HR. The first one aims at implementing the technological potential of the Panarea laboratory
to perform advanced studies on CO2 monitoring. The second one is aimed at reinforcing the
human capital and performing high-level research on CCUS.

Autonomous Region of Sardinia: The Center of Excellence on Clean Energy is funded by the
Autonomous Region of Sardinia, which aims at strengthening a research infrastructure on low
carbon energy, with particular reference to the development of CCUS technologies. Research
is being carried out in the Sulcis area (with the participation of Sotacarbo, OGS, INGV,
University of Cagliari and University of Rome "La Sapienza"), with focus on the study of
possible CO2 leaks along the faults.

Ministry of Economic Development (MISE): As part of the Research Programme for Electric
System funded by the MISE, Enea and Sotacarbo are carrying out studies for the production
of liquid and gaseous fuels through the catalytic hydrogenation of CO2.

203
Table IT: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage. Storage capacity

Land planning &

Environmental
infra-structure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex

impact

Social
Topic

Well
Addressed X X X
ECCSEL NatLab-Italy

ECCSEL NatLab-Italy

ECCSEL NatLab-Italy
Project examples

IPANEMA HR

IPANEMA HR

IPANEMA HR
IPANEMA

IPANEMA

IPANEMA
X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

IT4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

The interest in the field of research regarding CO2 geological storage has been increasing in
these last years thanks to the development of research activities, but also by the increment of
teaching activities dedicated to different targets (activation of university courses on CCS,
professional masters, etc.).

The main universities and research organisations active in the field of CO2 storage research
are:

- OGS (Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale),

- Sapienza University of Rome,
- CNR-ITAE (National Research Council - The Advanced Energy Technology Institute),
- CRS4 (Center for advanced studies, research and development in Sardinia),
- ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development),
- INGV (National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology),
- LEAP(Laboratorio Energia & Ambiente Piacenza),
- Politecnico di Milano,
- Politecnico di Torino,
- RSE-Ricerca sul Sistema Energetico,
- Sotacarbo S.p.A.,
- University of Bologna,
- University of Cagliari.

204
IT4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure
Italy is part of ECCSEL European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC), which
constitutes an important reference point for technology and research. ECCSEL groups a
network of excellent facilities, accessible to the national and international community, and
facilitates the development of joint research projects on CCUS. ECCSEL is linked to the major
national players on CCUS and to the running projects. Italy participates in ECCSEL with a total
of 17 facilities and 5 facility owners:

OGS owns 8 facilities all dedicated to storage: the natural laboratories of Panarea and Latera,
the Biomarine lab, PITOP geophysical test site, the calibration and metrology test site (CTMO),
an aircraft for remote sensing surveys, OGS Explora research vessel and the DeepLab.

- Sotacarbo offers 6 facilities, dedicated to capture, utilisation and storage: Advantest

Rock laboratory, PEC lab, COHYGEN, MEfCO2 laboratory, Fault Lab and XtL pilot.
- ENEA, the University of Bologna and LEAP offer one facility each on capture ZECOMIX,
MEMLAB and CO2Box, respectively.

The ECCSEL membership is planned to be expanded in the future, both in terms of facility
owners and of new facilities.

IT4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
- ENOS (ENabling Onshore CO2 Storage in Europe)
- ECCSELERATE (ECCSEL ERIC – accelerating user access, growing the membership
and positioning internationally to ensure long- term sustainability)
- SUCCEED (Synergetic Utilisation of CO2 storage Coupled with geothermal Energy
Deployment)
- CLEANKER (CLEAN clinKER production by calcium looping process)
- Store&Go (Innovative Large Scale Energy STORagE Technologies & Power-to-Gas
Concepts after Optimisation)
- MefCO2 (Synthesis of methanol from captured carbon dioxide using surplus
electricity)

205
IT5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
IT5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Awareness of the CCS technology is generally low in Italy, as in many other European countries
(Eurobarometer 2011). Although there are no recent surveys, the situation has probably only
slightly improved, given the low policy and media interest.

IT5.2 National advocates for CCS

CO2 Club Italia was initiated in 2007 by a group of universities and research institutes and,
since then, has been active to encourage collaboration between public and private research
groups, promote contacts and information exchanges among all stakeholders, transfer and
disseminate information through websites, organise conferences and seminars, formulate
recommendations to research funding bodies regarding the organisation and start-up of
interdisciplinary activities, and promote the Italian technological portfolio at European and
international level. The interest in CCUS is also demonstrated by the Italian participation in
international initiatives as SET Plan, CSLF, Innovation Fund.

IT5.3 Public engagement

In Italy, due to the absence of CCS projects, we can only refer to public engagement research
experiences on hypothetical CO2 storage installations. Interviews and focus groups have been
performed in Rome and other parts of Italy by Sapienza University of Rome (Vercelli et al.
2015, Mabon et al. 2013). Participants, for the most part, had an open attitude towards the
technology. However, the perception was easily influenced by the characteristics of the
relational context in which the participants came to learn about it. An open and interactive
format, which allowed for rich exchange and discussion, favoured collective reflection
processes on the different aspects of the technology. A more frontal and directive approach
appeared to stimulate more defensive reactions such as “not in my backyard”. Input from the
participants has provided a rich set of recommendations for a practical approach to public
perception issues.

206
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in LATVIA (LV; as of 30th June 2021)

LV1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The largest estimated CO2 storage capacity in Latvia is in the Cambrian Series 3 Deimena
Formation estimated as 400 Mt onshore and more than 300 Mt CO2 offshore (Sliaupa et al.
2013, Shogenov et al. 2013a, b, Shogenova et al. 2019). Since 2013 onshore storage capacity
has been re-estimated for four Latvian onshore structures (Dobele, South-Kandava, Blidene
and North Blidene) and for the E6 offshore structure (Shogenov et al. 2013a, b, Shogenov
2015, Simmer 2018, Shogenova et al. 2019).

The following common methodology was applied: Three-dimensional (3-D) structural models
were constructed using structure maps of the top reservoir and wells cross sections. Static
capacities were estimated using the formula reported in Bachu et al. (2007, 2008) and
recommendations made by US DOE (2008). Optimistic and conservative estimations were
based on various storage efficiency factors (10-20% for optimistic and 4% for conservative
estimates). The average conservative-optimistic (C-O) storage capacity of E6 structure is
about 150-380 Mt CO2 (Shogenov et al. 2013b).

The capacity of the largest offshore structure E6 was additionally re-estimated recently for
two different formations (Upper Ordovician Saldus F. and Cambrian Deimena F.) at the end of
CO2-EOR cycle in Upper Ordovician Saldus Formation. As a result average C-O storage
capacity of the Latvian offshore E6 structure is about 265-490 Mt CO2 (Shogenov and
Shogenova 2017, 2021).

Overall, Latvia has very good geological options for CO2 storage and could store CO2
emissions captured in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) countries without CO2 storage potential.
The largest Latvian emissions could be also stored together.

There is no national storage atlas available. Also, there has been no application for a CO2
storage exploration permit.

207
LV2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
LV2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

LV2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

LV2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

LV2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

LV2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The cement company SCHWENK Latvia (SCHWENK building material group) is planning to
develop a CCUS project for its Broceni Cement Plant in Latvia. CO2 will be captured by one of
the CO2 capture technologies recently developed for cement industry. Captured CO2 could be
transported to one of the prospective storage sites in Latvia (Dobele, or North-
Blidene/Blidene). SCHWENK Latvia is planning to work on regulatory issues with the Latvian
ministries and parliament and on public acceptance with local population. Currently storage
is legally prohibited but the climate law is under review. Akmenes Cement Plant in Lithuania,
recently acquired by SCHWENK Building materials group, could be considered as well to join
the CO2 capture and storage project (Source of information: Reinhold Schneider, SCHWENK
Latvia, presentation on 7/10/21).

208
LV3. National policies, legislation and regulations
LV3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Latvia has ratified the Paris Climate Agreement on 16th March 2017. In order for Latvia to
achieve its objectives to progress towards climate neutrality and climate resilience, several
key national level planning documents have been adopted. In July 2019, the Cabinet of
Ministers endorsed the Latvian climate change adaptation plan for the period up to 2030, in
order to help Latvian citizens and the economy to better adapt to climate change already
happening and thereby mitigate the damage caused by climate change. In January 2020, the
Cabinet of Ministers approved the Latvian strategy for the achievement of climate neutrality
by 2050, a long-term vision document to ensure a single country's direction, as well as to
justify the incorporation of a carbon low-capacity development framework into all sector
planning documents. In January 2020, the Cabinet of Ministers also endorsed the Latvian
national Energy and climate Plan 2021–2030, which provides for concrete measures to reduce
GHG emissions and increase CO2 uptake, to improve energy efficiency and promote
renewables in the sectors of energy, agriculture, transport, etc. and to promote research and
innovation in their respective fields.

Latvia submitted its 2050 climate and energy strategic targets to EC in January 2020, planning
to decrease its emissions to 65% by 2030 and to 85% by 2040 compared to 1990 and to
become climate neutral in 2050 (without Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)).
For LULUCF, it is planned to decrease Latvians emissions to 38% by 2030 and to 76% by 2040
compared to 1990 and to become climate neutral in 2050. The CCUS technology is also
introduced in the Latvian strategy: “Introduction of technologies for storage and use of CO2
emissions. Towards full decarbonisation, in addition to natural carbon sinks and storage
systems, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and use (CCU) technologies
could be introduced. Until now, when identifying potential geological storage sites in Latvia
and performing cost modelling, it was concluded that the efficiency of CO2 storage (CCS)
construction sites is too low and such a solution would not be economically justified at
present. However, further research is needed on the suitability and economic viability of CCS
technologies in various industrial processes. CCU technologies, on the other hand, involve the
processing of captured carbon for future use, for example in the production of plastics,
concrete or fuel. The carbon reduction potential of a CCU needs to be estimated throughout
its life cycle assessment”.

Latvia is not a party of London Conventions and London Protocol.

Latvia is a party of the OSPAR Convention under the European Union sign.

Latvia is a contracting party to the Helsinki Convention, 1992 (HELCOM).

209
LV3.2 National legislation and regulations
Latvia has made amendments to its national legislation to transpose the EU CCS Directive. A
framework has been established for obtaining permits for CO2 capture installations,
requirements have been set to regulate CO2 transportation and a purity criterion has been
established. The Saeima (Latvian Parliament) has adopted legislative amendments
prohibiting the storage of CO2 within Latvia’s borders, its exclusive economic zone, and on its
continental shelf except for research purposes in amounts of up to 100 kt CO2 (100,000 t).
The duration of the ban is dependent on information to be provided by the Ministry of
Environmental Protection and Regional Development to the Parliament. The Latvian
Parliament will then use this information to determine whether to lift or maintain the ban.
Latvia explained the ban by: i) lack of experience in using CCS technology on an industrial
scale and dealing with its environmental impacts; ii) opposition from experts in the
environmental authorities and from environmental organisations; iii) the absence of demand
for CCS from Latvia's energy and industrial operators, as natural gas is used as a fuel almost
exclusively and the capacity of combustion plants is small compared to the rest of the EU.
Latvia's geological structures were intended to be used primarily for natural gas storage and
for geothermal energy recovery (none of these plans are implemented up to now and there
are no new developments).

Latvia approved the law “Arrangements for transporting carbon dioxide streams” in October
2011, which includes issues on transport networks, pipelines, transboundary transport. In
more detail, the law (consisting of four paragraphs) defines the procedure for the transport of
CO2 streams through pipelines to storage sites in geological structures, the purity criteria for
CO2 streams (≥ 96% CO2) and the procedures for giving access to transport networks and
storage sites. The law is mainly dedicated to regulating “third-party access”, and only very
shortly addresses transboundary transport by requiring a cooperation of competent
authorities of both bordering Member States. It states that “The transport network operator
shall provide a potential user of the transport network with access to the transport network
for the transport of carbon dioxide streams through pipelines to areas where carbon dioxide
storage is permitted. The operator of the transport network may deny access to the transport
network, as a result of lack of capacity or connection”. Also, cooperation between Member
States is envisaged for the case when the transport network or the storage site is under the
jurisdiction of two or more than two Member States.

Latvia has experience in transboundary transport of natural gas (from Russia), and its
underground storage and supply when necessary to Estonia and Lithuania.

In Latvia the land including the subsurface belongs to the landlords. For onshore CO2 storage
in Latvian structures the permits from many small landlords will be required.

210
Table LV: Public authorities in Latvia responsible for the national transposition of the EU CCS
Directive.

Competent Authority Role

Coordinates the transposition of the EU CCS Directive and cooperates with the
Ministry of Environmental Protection
Ministry of Justice in matters concerning the determination of jurisdiction and
and Regional Development
transboundary transport.

State Office of Environmental Ensures that the capture and storage for plants greater than 300 MW are
Monitoring evaluated.

Incorporates “capture readiness” requirements for combustion plants in their

State Environmental Service permits and is responsible for setting the requirements for CO2 stream
composition.

LV4. Research
LV4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There is no national funding for CCS research in Latvia. The CO2 storage research for Latvia
is done since 2013 by Estonian TalTech-DG researchers.

LV4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

LEGMA (now LEGMC - Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre) participated in
FP6 EU GeoCapacity and FP7 CGS Europe project. No ongoing research activities on CCS in
Latvia. Department of Geology (former Institute of Geology) of Tallinn University of
Technology has been involved in research related to CO2 storage in Latvia since 2006,
including FP6 EU GeoCapacity and CO2NetEast projects, FP7 CGS Europe and CO2StoP
projects and ongoing Horizon 2020 ENOS and CLEANKER projects. Several Master and PhD
theses on CO2 storage have been defended. Estonian-Latvian CCUS scenarios are under
development now in the CLEANKER project (Shogenova et al. 2021a, Shogenov & Shogenova
2019, 2021).

LV4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

211
LV4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
None for Latvian partners.

LV5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

LV5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Low awareness in Latvia.

LV5.2 National advocates for CCS

Odin Energi Latvia is a company owning hydrocarbon licences for Latvian offshore structures.
This company and the governmental institution State Construction Control Bureau which is
the supervising institution for Odin Energi Latvia, for its hydrocarbon exploration and
production licence in Latvian offshore, could be considered as possible supporters of CCS in
Latvia.

The cement company SCHWENK Latvia is a new advocate for CCUS in Latvia.

LV5.3 Public engagement

None.

212
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in LITHUANIA (LT; as of 30th June 2021)

LT1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Šliaupa et al. (2013) evaluated Lithuania’s CO2 storage capacity in depleted oil fields as 5.7 Mt
CO2. Later work has shown the potential in the residual oil zone of the Cambrian Deimena
Formation to be much greater (Haselton 2019, Shogenova et al. 2021b). A study of the
capacity of 116 structures in the Lithuanian Cambrian aquifer showed that the two largest
structures have a storage capacity of 8 Mt and 21 Mt CO2, respectively. Storage capacity is
also available in several structures offshore Lithuania. However, detailed estimation of their
storage capacity have not been done yet, except for the small E7 structure, which was
considered earlier as located in the Latvian economic zone. The average conservative-
optimistic storage capacity of the E7 structure is about 7-34 Mt CO2 (Shogenov et al. 2013b).

Potentially greater storage potential is available through CO2-EOR in the Baltic Basin
hydrocarbon province. The Danish-Lithuanian oil company Minijos Nafta investigated CO2-
EOR to exploit the residual oil zone (not otherwise exploitable) in the Cambrian sandstones in
2013 and 2015 based on CO2 injection tests in three oil exploitation wells. The CO2 was
purchased from an Achema fertilizer plant in Lithuania. Obtained results showed about 250 Mt
CO2 storage potential in the west Lithuanian Gargzdai zone. Also, the study indicated that CO2-
EOR can increase recoverable oil reserves by up to 145 million barrels (Nordbäck et al. 2017,
Haselton 2019).

LT2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
LT2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
According to a presentation made by Thomassen (2019), Fortum Oslo Varme AS (FOV) is
planning a CO2 capture pilot plant in Klaipeda at its combined heat and power plant. Annual
volume of CO2 generated is about 275,000 t/year. With a capture rate 95%, about 260,000 t
CO2 are planned to be captured annually (870 t daily). Captured CO2 will include 50% of
biogenic CO2. Two capture technologies are evaluated based on Stockholm Exergi and FOV
experience (amine scrubbing and hot potassium carbonate). Pilot plant testing was planned
for 2020.

213
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) for NET Power emission-free, gas fired electric
plants was signed for the CleanEnergy Project in Lithuania with NET Power, 8 Rivers and the
Lithuanian Ministry of Energy in March 2019 (Haselton 2019). Talks have been initiated with
the Northern Lights project regarding transport and storage of the captured CO2 (Thomassen
2019). However, no progress or news are reported about this Fortum project at the present
time.

LT2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

LT2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
CO2-EOR was tested by Minijos Nafta in the Cambrian sandstones in 2013 and 2015 in the
west Lithuanian Gargzdai zone in three oil exploitation wells (Nordbäck et al. 2017, Haselton
2019). The area of the Gargzdai uplift zone is 380 km2, seven oil fields had been identified and
commercially exploited in the zone. CO2 injection experiments for EOR were performed in the
Diegliai, the Pociai and the South Siupariai field. From the total amount of 1300 t CO2 injected
in the three wells, only 330 t CO2 were recovered together with the oil while the rest stayed
underground (Haselton 2019).

LT2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
In 2019, plans for the Minijos Nafta “Clean Energy Project” were reported, which included
building an Allam cycle power plant in western Lithuania with CO2 capture, use of CO2 for EOR,
recycling and permanent CO2 storage and to provide a storage site for other major GHG
emitters in Lithuania (Haselton 2019).

LT2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

There is no concrete national initiative. Until recently, all possible activities were initiated by
the Minijos Nafta company (for further details see Haselton 2019), but CO2 injection activities
had to cease after 1st July 2020 when the Lithuanian CO2 injection ban of October 2019 came
into force.

214
On 30th June 2021, the SCHWENK Building Materials Group acquired additional shares of the
Akmenės Cementas AB cement plant in Lithuania, now holding a total of 97% of the company
shares. SCHWENK reported recently that the Akmenės Cementas AB cement plant could be
considered for CO2 capture and storage project together with the Broceni cement plant in
Latvia.

LT3. National policies, legislation and regulations

LT3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Lithuania has ratified the Paris Climate Agreement on 2nd February 2017.

Lithuania's strategic objective of climate change mitigation is to ensure sustainable

development, to achieve rapid economic growth and reduce GHG emissions. Together with
the EU and the other Member States Lithuania aims to pursue long-term climate stabilisation-
related objectives of the Paris Agreement by implementing a socially fair, competitive,
innovative and cost-effective transformation of all sectors of the economy and achieve GHG
emission neutrality by 2050. The strategic objective of climate change mitigation shall pursue
the following objectives: to decrease GHG emissions by 20% in 2020, not less than for 40% in
2030, for 70% in 2040 and 80% in 2050 compared to 1990. GHG reduction targets for the non-
EU-ETS participating sectors are set at the level of a maximum increase of 15% in 2020
compared to 2005 and a decrease for at least 9% by 2030 (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas
2019). Reducing CO2 levels through environmentally safe carbon capture and use
technologies (CCU) are mentioned in the Lithuanian climate strategy, which is interpreted as
“… projected growth in the number of green jobs for Lithuania in relevant areas: agriculture
and forestry, energy production from RES, bioeconomy, green infrastructure, the circular
economy, etc. […] An important role in promoting the transition to less polluting technologies
should be carried out by charges for environmental pollution, CO2 pricing system and the
waiver of applicable subsidies for fossil fuels.” CO2 geological storage is not introduced in the
Lithuanian strategy.

Lithuania is not a party of London Conventions and London Protocol.

Lithuania is a party of the OSPAR Convention under the European Union sign.

Lithuania is a contracting party to Helsinki Convention of 1992 (HELCOM).

215
LT3.2 National legislation and regulations
In 2011, two new legal acts were adopted in Lithuania to regulate the geological storage of
CO2 including licensing systems and implementation of the EU CCS Directive: 1) Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Official Gazette, 2011, No 91-
4325), referred to as “the Law”; and 2) Resolution No 1166 of the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania of 5th October 2011 on the approval of the description of the procedure for
exploration of carbon dioxide geological complexes, use and closure of carbon dioxide
storage sites (Official Gazette, 2011, No 5833-123), referred to as “the Description”. Also, in
28 legal acts, Lithuania transposed the specific provisions of the EU CCS Directive into
national law.

Among the Baltic States, Lithuania was the only country allowing CO2 geological storage both
onshore and offshore up to October 2019. In October 2019, the new government of Lithuania
with a large lobby from the agricultural party adopted a new Subsurface Law in Lithuania, by
which the injection and/or storage of CO2 in natural and / or artificial underground cavities
and/or aquifers is prohibited. This ban for any injection of the CO2 into the subsurface came
into force on 1st July 2020.

LT4. Research
LT4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There is no national funding for CCS-related research in Lithuania at present.

LT4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Institute of Geology and Geography of Nature Research Centre has been involved in research
related to CO2 storage since 2005, including the projects FP6 EU GeoCapacity and CO2NetEast,
FP7 CGS Europe and CO2StoP and a subcontract to the Horizon 2020 project ENOS.

The PhD thesis “Prospects of CO2 geological storage in the Baltic Sedimentary Basin”, which
included research on risk factors, was defended in 2014 by Rasa Šliaupienė (Šliaupienė &
Sliaupa 2012, Šliaupienė 2014).

LT4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

216
LT4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
Institute of Geology and Geography of Nature Research Centre had a subcontract with the
ENOS project for WP6.3 (pilots). Vilkyciai pilot project study for CO2-EOR was prepared in the
frame of this subcontract.

LT5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

LT5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Public awareness is low. There are no special surveys.

LT5.2 National advocates for CCS

Minijos Nafta company and Fortum are the most longstanding interested stakeholders in CCS.
More recently, however, SCHWENK Building Materials Group can be also considered an
industrial advocate for CCUS in Lithuania.

LT5.3 Public engagement

None.

217
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in THE NETHERLANDS (NL; as of 30th June 2021)

NL1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The focus for CO2 storage in the Netherlands is on depleted hydrocarbon (predominantly gas)
fields where currently only offshore possibilities are being developed. The total theoretical
storage capacity in Dutch offshore gas fields lies around 1.6 Gt spread over 150 fields. The
effective capacity (minus unsuitable fields) of all offshore fields is around 900 Mt (NLOG
2020). The most extensive research conducted to establish the total storage capacities in the
Netherlands can be found in the following reports:

• EBN-Gasunie report entitled “Transport en opslag van CO2 in Nederland (in Dutch; EBN
& Gasunie 2017),
• TNO-GCCSI report entitled “Independent assessment of high-capacity offshore CO2
storage options (Neele et al. 2012).

Table NL1: Summary and breakdown of storage capacity and number of fields in the Netherlands
(theoretical storage capacity, practical storage capacity; from EBN & Gasunie 2017). Note that
the storage capacity of the giant Groningen gas field has not been included in the numbers
for the onshore.

Offshore Onshore
Theoretical storage capacity 2,246 Mt 222 1,392 Mt 172
Practical storage capacity 1,678 Mt (75%) 104 (47%) 1,060 Mt (76%) 54 (31%)

There is more than enough storage capacity in the Dutch offshore gas fields to store all CO2
for the coming decades that can be realistically captured in the Netherlands. This estimation
is based on three scenarios analysed by EBN and Gasunie, with a maximum potential of 30 Mt
CO2 to be stored per year (EBN & Gasunie 2017).

The option of EOR is not considered to have much potential for the Netherlands, TNO
estimated a capacity of only 7 Mt CO2, excluding the larger Schoonebeek field. The application
of CO2-EOR would require further site-specific studies and is not a current focus in the
Netherlands.

218
Knowledge regarding deep saline aquifers is currently limited in the Netherlands with
locations and potential not currently mapped in detail. The extent of the storage potential of
deep saline aquifers is therefore not systematically determined. Neele et al. (2012) provided
an estimate of the storage capacity for selected aquifers in the Dutch offshore of 1,370 to
1,485 Mt CO2.

Finally, the option of salt caverns has also been considered. These caverns are mostly used
for salt production or temporary gas storage (peak shavers). A theoretical capacity of 40 Mt
CO2 is estimated, but this would be spread over more than 100 caverns. Overall, the use of salt
caverns for CO2 storage in the Netherlands is not currently considered a practical option.

The P18-4 gas reservoir had an irrevocable permit for permanent storage in 2013, which was
part of the ROAD CCS Project cancelled in 2017. A draft decision on the amendment of the
P18-4 permit was made so that it fits to the requirements in the Porthos project. Recently
applications for permanent storage permits have been prepared for the P18-2 and P18-6 gas
reservoirs, which are planned to be used in the Porthos project together with the P18-4
reservoir (see Section NL2.4).

NL2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
NL2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Since August 2019, CO2 is captured from an AVR (Afvalverbranding Rijnmond) waste
incineration stack in Duiven. A post-combustion capture installation with a capacity of 100 kt
CO2/year was installed which is sufficient for 25 to 30% of the CO2 emission of the AVR plant.
The captured CO2 is sold to horticultural greenhouses for fertilisation purposes.

NL2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
Already since 2005, pure CO2 is being transported via a pipeline operated by OCAP to end
users in greenhouse farming. The CO2 is produced at a refinery operated by Shell and since
2011 also from bioethanol production by Alco. Several hundred kilotons of CO2 per year are
delivered to more than 600 greenhouse farmers. In the future, the OCAP infrastructure may be
connected with the Porthos network which is now being developed (see Section NL2.4).

219
NL2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
A CO2 storage pilot in the offshore K12-B gas reservoir was in operation from 2004 to 2017
(Vandeweijer et al. 2018). In total, a little more than 100 kt CO2 were injected.

NL2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
Porthos is currently the most developed full-chain CCUS project in the Netherlands. The
Porthos consortium will provide the transport and storage facilities and the emitters will be
responsible for the capture processes. Porthos will transport the CO2 from suppliers
(suppliers are not yet formalised) via an onshore pipeline to a compressor station from where
it will travel offshore by pipeline 20-25 km to economically depleted natural gas fields for
storage. The Porthos Project concept is based on a collective pipeline of approximately 30-
33 km that runs through Rotterdam’s port area. This pipeline will serve as a basic
infrastructure that a variety of industrial parties can connect to in order to dispose of the CO2
captured at their facilities. Alongside storage, the Porthos infrastructure is also suitable for
transporting CO2 for use in industries. A share of this CO2 will be used for greenhouse farming
in the province of South Holland. By 2030, it is expected to be able to store between 2 and 5
Mt CO2 every year. The project has been awarded PCI Status. Recently the Dutch government
has made a reservation of EUR 2.2 billion for four CO2 suppliers to be connected to the Porthos
infrastructure (see also Section NL3.1).

Three offshore storage sites are planned: the P18-2, P18-4 and P18-6 depleted gas fields. All
lie in the North Sea, all are accessible from the P18-A platform. TAQA is the operator and EBN
is a co-shareholder in the natural gas extraction. TAQA already has a CO2 storage permit for
P18-4.

Previous projects include the ROAD project which was developed by Maasvlakte CCS Project
C.V., a joint venture of E.ON Benelux and ENGIE Energie Nederland (known as GDF SUEZ
Energie Nederland N.V. prior to April 2015). ROAD aimed to capture CO2 from the flue gases
of Maasvlakte Power Plant 3 (MPP3) using post-combustion capture technology. The
captured CO2 was then to be transported through a pipeline and injected into a depleted gas
field under the North Sea. Due to financial uncertainty the project was cancelled in 2017.

A number of onshore demonstration projects have previously been prepared in the

Netherlands, including storage in the depleted gas field of Barendrecht by Shell, storage below
coal layers in the Limburg area (on the DSM industrial terrain Chemelot) by DSM and storage
in the depleted gas fields Boerakker, Eleveld and Sebaldeburen in the Northern part of the
Netherlands. However, mainly due to the lack of public support, onshore storage is not being
developed further, since sufficient offshore storage capacity is available.

220
NL2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development
The Porthos project will form part of an industrial cluster, with numerous CO2 sources in the
Port of Rotterdam planned to utilise one transport and storage system offshore. Currently, the
Port of Rotterdam area has an existing system that delivers CO2 from industrial emitters to
greenhouses; the surplus CO2 is currently being emitted. Porthos would form the first phase
of a hub-and-cluster style development. Operations are planned to start in 2024. Many other
hypothetical developments have been envisaged for The Port of Rotterdam. The Port of
Rotterdam and Port of Antwerp attained PCI status for the cross-boundary transport
infrastructure project CO2TransPorts, which received CEF funding.

There is the potential to expand the industrial cluster even further by including other emitters
in the Port of Rotterdam as well as the rest of the Netherlands, and potential connections with
other nearby industrial clusters including Le Havre, Antwerp and the Ruhr area. This phase
would include new transport and storage infrastructure including development of nearby
aquifers, a pipeline between Antwerp and Rotterdam utilising existing pipeline corridors, CO2
shipping connecting Le Havre, and inland shipping of CO2 on the Rhine (Element Energy 2017).

The H (H2)-Vision concept developed by The Port of Rotterdam involves the large-scale
production of hydrogen using both natural gas and refinery fuel-gas as feedstock. The overall
goal of the H-Vision concept is to enable significant CO2 emissions reductions in the power
and industrial sector in Rotterdam, while developing the infrastructure for “green hydrogen”.
The additional hydrogen produced can be used for high-temperature heating processes in the
large refinery sector of the port, and also for power generation either through the use of gas
turbines (able to run on hydrogen rich fuels), or through the conversion of existing coal-fired
power plants. It is understood that the H-Vision concept could reduce CO2 emissions from the
processes in the port area by between 2 to 6 Mt per annum.

Other initiatives for CCS cluster development are centred around the Amsterdam harbour area
(Athos), Eemshaven (H2M) and Den Helder (Aramis). A public-private consortium in the Athos
project is studying the feasibility of capturing CCS from industrial sources in the Amsterdam
region and to transport and store the CO2 in the North Sea region. Start of operations is
expected in 2027.

221
NL3. National policies, legislation and regulations
NL3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The Dutch Climate Act calls for a 49% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030,
compared to 1990 levels, and a 95% reduction by 2050. The National Climate Agreement
contains agreements with the sectors on what they will do to help achieve these climate goals.
The participating sectors are: electricity, industry, built environment, traffic and transport, and
agriculture and land use. For full details, see:

• Climate Act in Dutch,

• Climate Accord in Dutch; Section C.3 treats measures for industry including CCS,
• Joint fact finding document on CCS supporting Climate Accord in Dutch,
• Background document with CCS roadmap for the Netherlands in Dutch.

Generally, CCS is recognised in the Netherlands as part of the suite of technologies required
to reach the Paris Agreement targets. The coalition agreement of the Rutte III cabinet
endorses the importance of CCS.

In 2019, the Dutch subsidy scheme for Demonstrating Energy Innovation (Demonstratie
Energie-Innovatie, DEI) was altered significantly. More emphasis is now placed on the
condition for achieving CO2 reductions in pilot and demonstration projects, and new types of
projects have become applicable. The subsidy scheme is now open and the Netherlands
Enterprise Agency (RVO.nl), is assessing proposals on a first-come-first-served basis.

The scheme was previously intended to showcase Dutch energy innovations, particularly for
the export of new technologies. From 2019, there is more emphasis on technologies that can
contribute to achieving the national climate agreement “het Klimaatakkoord”. CO2 reduction
technologies for industry, including CO2 capture, storage and use (CCUS) are now applicable
for funding.

Recently (February 2020) the SDE ++ subsidy was released. In 2020, the SDE ++ was opened
to various categories of CCS. The SDE ++ offers subsidies for the use of renewable energy
technologies and other CO2 reducing technologies. The “unprofitable top” is subsidised for
each technique. This is the difference between the cost price of the technology that reduces
the CO2 (the “base amount”) and the market value of the product that the technology produces
(the “correction amount”). The base amount is determined for the entire duration of the
subsidy, while the correction amount is determined annually. If the market value rises, the
unprofitable top will decrease and so will the subsidy (RVO 2020). The SDE ++ subsidy for CCS
has a cap of 7.2 Mt CO2. From 2035 onwards CCS will only be subsidised if it results in
negative emissions (Climate Plan 2020).

222
NL3.2 National legislation and regulations
The Netherlands has strict regulations and permitting requirements regarding mining
activities. The regulations for offshore mining activities are built around the already existing
hydrocarbon production industry. Amendments have been made to the Dutch Mining Act to
allow for the storage of CO2, as a result of the implementation of the EU CCS Directive into
national law in 2011 (Directive 2009/31/EC). The Netherlands is also a contracting party to
both the 1996 London Protocol and the 1992 OSPAR Convention. Both the London Protocol
and OSPAR Convention are recognised in the legal text of the Dutch Mining Decree, and
although the contents of their associated guidelines have not been transposed into the
Decree, they are applicable to all mining activities covered by the Mining Act. A majority of the
regulatory framework regarding wells is based on use with hydrocarbons although use with
CO2 is permitted. None of the current standards or best practice documents contain reference
to the re-use of offshore wells for CO2 injection. In 2021 the Mining Act was amended so that
operators can obtain an exemption of decommissioning gas production infrastructure, e.g.
for the purpose of re-using wells.

Currently there are no fully integrated commercial CCS projects operational in the Netherlands
and the re-use of a well for permanent CO2 storage has not been undertaken since the
European CCS Directive was implemented in 2011. Permits have been issued for the re-use of
wells though, and CO2 was injected at the K12-B field from 2004–2017 for enhanced gas
recovery purposes. The K12-B project re-used a gas production well for the injection of CO2. A
CO2 storage permit has also been issued in the Netherlands, to the ROAD project, for the
storage of CO2 in the P18-4 gas field although this project never entered into operation. Due
to the lack of commercial CCS operations, the Dutch National Framework is currently lacking
CO2 specific legislation and standards for wells and for the reuse of wells. Such legislation
would greatly aid the commercial development of CCS projects. To date the State Authority
of Mines considers the current law and rules to be adequate for CO2 related wells.

Across the full CCS chain different elements are covered by different permitting requirements.
The legislative requirements for a CO2 storage permit, which would include well requirements,
are given by The Dutch Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet). The competent authority regarding the
Mining Act and therefore CO2 storage is the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.

223
NL4. Research
NL4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
CATO is the Dutch national R&D programme for CO2 capture, transport and storage in which
a consortium of nearly 40 partners contributes. Building on the success of the first two funding
programmes CATO-1 and CATO-2 which finished in 2014 the Dutch CATO programme is still
underway today. Besides the financial contributions of industrial partners, the third phase of
CATO will be funded by government sources, such as TKI, CLIMIT, and EU ERA-NET.

The CATO programme office coordinates all the programmes under the CATO umbrella to
strengthen the CSS network and knowledge transfer. Participants in the CATO programme are
or have been involved in many projects and networks regarding CCS, such as those funded by
the 6. and 7. EU Framework Programmes, as well as H2020 activities. This helps to ensure
coordination with ongoing and envisaged research efforts. For those projects that do not
include any CATO participants, CATO seeks to maintain close contact and learn from their
findings. Members of the CATO programme are also involved in international boards such as
IEAGHG and ETP-ZEP.

Alongside CATO, individual research institutes, universities and companies take part in
various EU projects with partners from industry, SMEs, and NGOs.

Table NL2: Overview of research topics addressed by the nationally-funded research programme
CATO.

Social acceptance
Storage capacity

Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

Monitoring
Modelling
Complex

impact
Topic

Well

Addressed (x) X X X X X X X X

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

NL4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Research institutes involved in CO2 storage research include:

• TNO Energy Transition;

• Universities: Delft University of Technology, Utrecht University, VU University
Amsterdam, University of Groningen.

224
Furthermore, large industrial partners involved in CATO subproject 3 on CO2 storage and
monitoring, include: Shell, E.ON, RWE, Electrabel GDF-Suez, TAQA, EBN, Wintershall, and
Schlumberger.

Smaller partners include: Panterra, IF, DAP and the Rotterdam Climate Initiative.

A full list of participants to CATO can be found at the CATO website.

NL4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

The Netherlands (TNO) has capture test facilities for post-combustion capture (solvent and
membranes) and chemical looping:

- Mini Plant for solvent preparation & testing, Delft

- QSCAN solvent test street, Delft
- Chemical looping combustion fixed bed facility, Delft
- High pressure absorption and desorption pilot, Delft
- Aerosol Test and Counter Measure, Delft

For storage technology, TNO has the following facilities:

- Mobile Seismic Array (MobSeis), Utrecht

- Test Rig and Large Well (RCSG), Rijswijk
Details can be found on the ECCSEL website.

NL4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
TNO is currently or has been involved in the following EU‐funded research projects addressing
aspects relevant for/related to CCS:

• Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe, ENOS (H2020 project)

• Accelerating Low carbon Industrial Growth through CCUS, ALIGN CCUS (ACT project)
• Reusing existing wells for CO2 storage operations, REX-CO2 (ACT project)
• CCUS Knowledge Sharing Network
• Establishing CO2 enhanced Oil recovery Business Advantages in South Eastern
Europe, ECOBASE (ACT project)
• Demonstrating a Refinery-Adapted Cluster-Integrated Strategy to Enable Full-Chain
CCUS Implementation, REALISE (H2020 project)
• Pressure control and conformance management for safe and efficient CO2 storage -
Accelerating CCS Technologies, Pre-ACT (ACT project)

225
 • Digital Monitoring of CO2 storage projects, DIGIMON (ACT project)
• The Norwegian CCS Research Centre, NCCS (public-private funding)
• Subsurface Evaluation of CCS and Unconventional Risks, SECURe (H2020 project)
• European Research Infrastructure for CO2 Capture, Utilisation, Transport and Storage
(CCUS), ECCSEL (European Research Infrastructure Consortium) and project
ECCSELARATE

NL5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

NL5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
The extensive review of the Dutch public opinion and awareness of CCS undertaken over 12
years ago as part of the CATO project (Paukovic et al. 2011) determined that overall
awareness of CCS is low, and the understanding of the drivers and intricacy of climate change
science is also relatively poorly understood by the general public. More recent investigations
in the ALIGN-CCUS project (ALIGN-CCUS 2021) revealed that the awareness of the Dutch
public of CCS is moderate. Opinions of informed citizens were found to be neutral to slightly
positive.

NL5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

NL5.3 Public engagement

Probably, Barendrecht is the most well-known case study currently available for its issues
around public acceptance. Public acceptance was a key challenge for the project given its
location in a densely populated area and in-depth reviews have been undertaken (Kuijper
2011). One of the key lesson from the Barendrecht project is that in the case of publicly co-
funded projects it is essential that the authorities and the companies involved work together
very closely from the start in developing a public engagement strategy. In the Netherlands
opinions on the need for CCS are still hotly debated within and between different organisations
including political parties, knowledge institutes and NGOs. As a result, there are many
stakeholders with an interest in the success or failure of demonstration projects.

226
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in NORWAY (NO; as of 30th June 2021)

NO1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Apart from the not-fully-explored storage potential on Svalbard (Braathen et al. 2012), there
are no on-shore sedimentary basins suited for CO2 storage in Norway. Capacity assessments
are therefore at present exclusively based on saline aquifers and depleted petroleum
reservoirs in offshore areas. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) has compiled an
online CO2 Atlas for the Norwegian Continental Shelf. The Atlas includes interactive maps
providing an overview of potential storage sites in the Norwegian North Sea, the Norwegian
Sea and the southern Barents Sea.

Assessments of individual aquifers and structures with respect to capacity, injectivity and
safe storage of CO2, were carried out using a standardised checklist based on petroleum
industry experience. The assessments include estimates of reservoir thickness and
permeability, seal quality, the quality of data coverage, technical maturity, the presence of old
wells penetrating the seal, and dense-phase CO2 storage as the safest and most efficient
storage option. For some areas, poor seismic data coverage and absence of well data
constrain the precision of the estimates. The assessment of storage capacity does not
address economic aspects. The most recently-updated total for offshore storage capacity -
most of it defined as exploration phase (Halland 2019) - is around 70 Gt, which represents a
substantial increase over previous estimates of 29 Gt by Vangkilde-Pedersen (2009) and
48.4 Gt by Halland et al. (2014). Due to the presence of aquifers suitable for storage at several
stratigraphic levels, where the Jurassic forms the main potential target for CO2 injection, the
total capacity of the North Sea aquifers is much larger than for the other regions.

The first permit by the authorities to exploit an area for injection and storage of CO2 was
awarded in January 2019 to the Northern Lights project. The project is a collaboration between
Equinor, Shell and Total, involving capture of up to 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year from
industrial sources on land, subsequent transport by ship and pipeline and sub-surface
sequestration in the Johansen and Cook Formations at 2700 m depth, southeast of the Troll
field in the North Sea. Northern Lights supports the ambition of the Norwegian government to
develop a full-scale CCS value chain by 2024. A plan for development and operation of the site
was submitted to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy on 15th May 2020. An investment
decision by the Norwegian Parliament is expected in 2020/2021. The facility will become
operational early in 2025, with a planned lifetime of 25 years and a storage capacity close to
40 Gt in phase one. Phase two envisages an expansion to an injection capacity of 5 Mt
CO2/year.

227
NO2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
NO2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Carbon capture at Fortum Varme’s waste-incineration plant at Klemetsrud, Oslo. Initiative
aiming to capture 400,000 tons/year (or 90%) of CO2 emissions from the plant, employing
Shell’s CANSOLV CO2 carbon capture technology, which was approved by DNV GL as qualified
for a full-scale demonstration project in July 2020 following more than 5000 hours of testing
during the FEED-phase in 2019. Full-scale capture is expected to be operational by 2023/2024.
The facility is part of the Northern Lights CCS value chain.

Carbon capture at NORCEM’s cement factory in Brevik aims to capture 400,000 tons/year (or
50%) of CO2 emission from the plant. The facility is part of the Northern Lights CCS value
chain. DNV-GL awarded a “Statement of Qualified Technology” for the capture technology
supplied by Aker Solution in April 2020. In June, the company owners approved and
recommended full-scale development of the capture facility, pending a final decision on
government financial support expected in autumn 2020.

SINTEF AS CO2 capture pilot plant at Tiller. Test facility for development of post-combustion
CO2 capture. Active Since 2010, it consists of a complete absorption and desorption plant with
a CO2 capacity of 50 kg CO2/h. The facility is part of ECCSEL.

Technology Centre Mongstad, TCM, was established with the aim of capturing CO2 emissions
from the petroleum refinery plant at Mongstad in 2012. Plans for full-scale capture were
cancelled by the government in 2017, but the facility is now the world’s largest a test centre
for CO2 capture technologies (see also NO4.3).

NO2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
The Snøhvit facility on Melkeøya. Up to 700,000 tons of CO2 from the natural gas production
at the Snøhvit field in the Barents Sea is separated out of the natural gas using amines at the
onshore pipeline terminus at Melkeøya near Hammerfest, and transported back to the field by
a second, 145 km long, pipeline for re-injection (see NO2.3 for details).

228
The CCB Kollsnes storage terminal and pumping station near Bergen is part of the Northern
Lights CCS value chain. CO2 captured from industrial plants in Eastern Norway will be shipped
to Kollsnes for interim storage before being transported offshore by a pipeline and injected
for permanent storage 1000-2000 m below the seabed.

NO2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
At the Sleipner field, operated by Equinor, close to 1 Mt CO2 are annually separated from
production of natural gas and re-injected into the Utsira Formation (Baklid et al. 1996, Furre et
al. 2017, Ringrose 2018). The operation has been active and closely monitored since 1996
providing a good case study for long-term reservoir response to CO2 injection.

The Snøhvit field is a gas field in the Barents Sea operated by Equinor. Since 2008, 700,000 t
CO2 from the gas production from the Early and Middle Jurassic Nordmela and Stø
Formations has annually been separated out at the onshore pipeline terminus and piped back
to the field for re-injection into the Stø Formation below the actual gas field. Initially, CO2 was
re-injected into the Early Jurassic Tubåen Formation where the storage capacity was
discovered to be less than expected (Grude et al. 2014).

The UNIS CO2 lab located near Longyearbyen was initiated in 2011 building on CO2 research
conducted at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), the laboratory has carried out studies
aimed at implementing a full CCS chain involving the capture of CO2 from Norway’s only coal-
fuelled power plant and injection into the Triassic aquifer below Longyearbyen. A
comprehensive evaluation of the storage site was carried out, including extensive outcrop and
seismic studies, and drilling, logging and sampling of a number of wells (Braathen et al. 2012,
Ogata et al. 2012, Bohloli et al. 2014; Olaussen et al. 2019). All data and publications from the
project can be accessed for research purposes through the UNIS CO2 website. The initiative
was funded through a combination of governmental grants through the CLIMIT programme
of the Norwegian Research Council and industry partners, and involved a number of
Norwegian universities and research Institutes.

NO2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
Northern Lights (see above).

NO2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Northern Lights (see above).

229
NO3. National policies, legislation and regulations
NO3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate
strategies
As of February 2020, Norway’s updated climate target under the Paris agreement (NDCs), is
to reduce emissions by at least 50%, and towards 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This
is in line with the emissions pathways towards 2050 and onwards, as described by the IPCC
special report on the impacts of global warming as necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 °C,
and corresponds to the global long-term goal of the Paris Agreement. The Norwegian
authorities’ choice of measures is based on the principle that emitters should bear the cost of
emissions. More than 80% of GHG emissions in Norway are subject to tariffs or part of the
common European quota system (EU-ETS) limiting emissions from industry, power
generation, petroleum industry and air transport. Quotas assigned to emitters are reduced
annually to achieve a 43% emission reduction by 2030 compared to 2005. In addition to tariffs
and quotas, the government employs law, regulations, and incentives. Oil heating of buildings
is to be prohibited as of 2020. The 2017 law of Public Acquisition includes an environmental
clause encouraging the use of climate-friendly options, and development of urban areas is to
include comprehensive solutions for collective transport and extensive, bicycle paths and
pedestrian areas. The governmentally-supported electrification of the transport sector is
already well established, with Norway currently sporting the highest number of electric cars
per capita of any country. There are several governmental support measures to encourage
development of reduced or zero-emission solutions. These include Enova and Klimasats,
organised under the Ministry of Climate and Environment and contributing to a national
change in energy production and usage. There are also several dedicated programmes funded
through the Norwegian Research Council supporting basic and applied research and
development of environmental friendly energy and handling of greenhouse gases. About 50%
of the financial portfolio of Innovasjon Norge, the Norwegian government’s instrument for
innovation and development of national enterprises and industries, has an environmentally-
focussed profile.

The Norwegian government concurs with statements by the IPCC and the IEA that achieving
climate goals will be difficult and significantly more costly to reach without CCS. Norway’s
national strategy for CCS includes research, development and demonstration of CCS
technology and realising a full-scale project with international dissemination potential. The
latter has come into fruition through the Northern Lights project currently being assessed by
the government for implementation.

230
NO3.2 National legislation and regulations
The EU CCS Directive entered into force for Norway in 2014 (Vold 2020). Responsibility for
implementation of the Directive in Norway is delegated to the Ministry for Petroleum and
Energy (resource management) and the Ministry for Climate and Environment (environmental
issues). The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy has the main responsibility for enacting
governmental strategies regarding CO2 handling. The interests of the Norwegian State in
relation to CCS are managed by Gassnova, a state enterprise responsible for maturing full-
scale CCS projects in Norway to the investment decision stage.

A dedicated legal regulatory framework for transport and sub-sea CO2 storage on the
Norwegian continental shelf was introduced in 2014. This includes regulations on the
utilisation of subsea reservoirs on the continental shelf for the storage of CO2 and on the
transport of CO2 on the continental shelf. These supplement the 1963 Act on Research,
Exploration and Exploitation of Other Natural Resources than Petroleum on the Ocean Floor
(the Continental Shelf Act), the 1981 Pollution and Waste Act, and the 1996 Petroleum
Activities Act.

NO4. Research
NO4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
For 2020, the Norwegian government allocated NOK 628 million for CCS research. The funds
are managed by the CLIMIT programme – which covers both the support scheme for research
and development (CLIMIT R&D) administered by the Norwegian Research Council (NRC), and
Gassnova’s support scheme for development and demonstration of technology for CO2
capture and storage (CLIMIT Demo) including the Mongstad TCM facility. CO2 storage-related
research on site characterisation, storage capacities, well technology and modelling has also
been funded through the PETROMAKS2 programme. NRC funding schemes range from
research projects solely funded by the NRC to projects involving 20-50% industry sponsorship.
The NRC also provides multi-year funding for several time-limited centres for environmentally-
friendly energy (FME), including the former SUCCESS (2010–2018), and BIGCCS (2008–2016),
and the present NCCS (Norwegian CCS Centre, 2016–2024). Industry involvement in CCS-
related research in Norway is substantial (e.g. by Equinor, Aker Solutions), with companies
contributing to CCS research related to their commercial activities either through in-house
research, acting as sponsors for research projects proposed by the universities and institute
sector, or providing financial and in-kind support for research centres.

231
Table NO: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage (if no project acronyms are available, shortened project titles are used in the table
with full names and links given below). For a comprehensive overview of nationally funded
research projects in Norway visit the CLIMIT website.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed X X X X X X X X

Protection of Caprock Integrity ….

Passive sampler for monitoring

Injection well management… .
Injection well management …

Prediction of CO2 leakage …

Real-Time Monitoring…
CO2-Hub Nordland
Project examples

PERCCSEPTIONS
CO2SafeArrest

ACT4storage
MatMoRA-II
PREEM CCS

CONQUER
EDDiCCUT

TrykkCO2
O2 limits
REX-CO2

DigiMon
ECO2

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

Full project names and links:

- Subsurface storage of CO2 – Injection well management during the operational phase
- Techno-Economic Feasibility Study of the Implementation of Carbon Capture from Major Emission
Sources at Preemraff Lysekil” (PREEM CCS)
- CO2-Hub Nordland
- EDDiCCUT (Environmental Due Diligence of CO2 Capture and Utilization Technologies)
- Reusing existing wells for CO2 storage operations (REX-CO2)
- Materials selection for CO2 transport and injection wells - O2 limits
- Sub-seabed CO2 Storage: Impact on Marine Ecosystems (ECO2)
- Environmental impacts of leakage from sub-seabed CO2 storage (TrykkCO2)
- Protection of Caprock Integrity for Large-Scale CO2 Storage
- Improving safety and efficiency of CO2 pipelines by developing and validating predictive models for CO2
pipeline design (CO2SafeArrest)
- CO2 Storage in the North Sea: Quantification of Uncertainties and Error Reduction (CONQUER)
- Geological Storage of CO2, Mathematical Modeling and Risk Assessment (MatMoRA-II)
- Real-Time Monitoring for Safe Geological CO2 Storage (DigiMon)
- Passive sampler for monitoring of CO2 leakage
- Prediction of CO2 leakage from reservoirs during large scale storage
- Acoustic and Chemical Technologies for environmental monitoring of geological carbon storage
(ACT4storage)
- Public perceptions of carbon capture and storage (PERCCSEPTIONS)

232
NO4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
Major:

- SINTEF Energy Research AS

- SINTEF Tel-tek
- NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
- NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS
- NIVA Norwegian Institute for Water Research
- IFE Institute for Energy Technology
- NGI Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
- NPD Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
- DNV-GL Det Norske Veritas-Germanischer Lloyd

Minor:

- University of Bergen
- University of Oslo
- University of Tromsø
- University Centre in Svalbard
- NGU Geological Survey of Norway
- USN University of South-Eastern Norway

NO4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

The Technology Center at Mongstad (TCM). Established in 2012, TCM is a test centre for
developing CO2 capture technologies operated by Equinor and owned by the Norwegian State
through Gassnova with Equinor, Shell and Total as industrial partners. The main objective of
TCM is to test, verify and demonstrate different technologies related to cost-efficient and
industrial scale CO2-capture. Since the operational start-up in 2012, Aker Solutions (Norway),
Alstom SA (France), Cansolv Technologies Inc. (Canada), Carbon Clean Solutions (UK/India),
ION Engineering (USA) and Fluor Corporation (USA) have tested their technologies at TCM.
The centre collaborates with a number of international and national research institutes and
universities.

Svelvik CO2 Field Lab: Initiated in 2009, the Svelvik Field Lab is part of the ECCSEL
infrastructure. Four 100 m deep wells spaced 10 to 20 metres from a central injection well are
used to study CO2 migration in the shallow subsurface, identify possible leakage pathways
and assess the suitability of different monitoring techniques. The field laboratory is operated
by SINTEF in collaboration with partners from the institute and academic sector as well as
industry.

233
NTNU, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and the research institute
SINTEF in Trondheim host a 8,000 square metre, EUR 40 million research facility, where 750
people work at mitigating emissions like CO2, NOx, SOx and other greenhouse gases. The
facility is part of ECCSEL with laboratories for fabrication of polymer-based membranes,
testing of membrane gas permeation performance, absorption kinetics, solvent degradation
and thermodynamic studies.

NCCS, the Norwegian CCS Research Centre is a national Centre for Environment-friendly
Energy Research (FME) funded by the Norwegian Research Council and industry for eight
years (2016–2024). It is part of the Norwegian government objective for realisation of a full-
scale CCS chain by 2022. The NCCS vision is to address the major obstacles within
demonstration and industry projects worldwide.

The FALCON CO2 Flow Loop Laboratory operated by the Norwegian Institute for Energy
Research (IFE), operational since 2011, consists of a tiltable rig to test long distance pipeline
transport of pure CO2 or CO2 mixtures ranging from low pressure vapour flow to supercritical
flow.

DeFACTO CO2 flow loop facility is operated by SINTEF in Trondheim, Norway, and comprises
a 139 m horizontal and up to 90 m (depth) vertical loops for the Demonstration of Flow
Assurance for CO2 Transport Operations.

Equinor operates a CO2 multiphase test rig at their Porsgrunn refinery R&D facilities, in
partnership with Total, Gassnova and Gassco (Andersen et al. 2021). The flow loop is the
world’s largest test facility for CO2 transport, has a 200 m pipe line with an 80 mm inside
diameter and a section that can be inclined to 10°. It is a modification, completed in 2020, to
the gas-oil-water multiphase pipeline transport test rig built in 1997. The modification allows
study of simultaneous pipeline transport of CO2 in gas and liquid phases. Research results are
considered important for determining pipeline routes and which reservoirs can be utilised,
especially for the CO2 transport and storage project Northern Lights.

NO4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
Norwegian participation in recent (post 2013) and current EU-funded, regional and
international research projects:

- Accelerating Carbon Capture using Oxyfuel Technology in Cement Production

(AC2OCEM)
- Act on Offshore Monitoring (ACTOM)
- Digital Monitoring of CO2 storage projects (DIGIMON)

234
 - Lowering absorption process uncertainty, risks and costs by predicting and
controlling amine degradation (LAUNCH)
- Innovative membrane systems for CO2 capture and storage at sea (MemCCSea)
- Negative Emissions in the Waste-to-Energy Sector: Technologies for Carbon
Capture, Utilisation & Storage (NEWEST-CCUS)
- Process-Informed design of tailor-made Sorbent Materials for energy efficient
carbon capture (PrISMa)
- Reusing existing wells for CO2 storage operations (REX-CO2)
- Assuring integrity of CO2 storage sites through ground surface monitoring
(SENSE)
- Accelerating Low carbon Industrial Growth through CCUS (ALIGN CCUS)
- Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy via Hydrogen and CCS (ELEGANCY)
- Pressure control and conformance management for safe and efficient CO2
storage - Accelerating CCS Technologies (Pre-ACT)
- ACORN
- Establishing CO2 enhanced Oil recovery Business Advantages in South Eastern
Europe (ECOBASE)
- Demonstration of Gas Switching Technology for Accelerated Scale-up of
Pressurised Chemical Looping Applications (GASTECH)
- Three Dimensional Printed Capture Materials for Productivity Step-Change
(3D-CAPS)
- Strategies for Environmental Monitoring of Marine Carbon Capture and Storage
(STEMM-CCS)
- Towards a transport infrastructure for large-scale CCS in Europe (CO2Europipe)
- NordiCCS – Nordic CCS Competence Centre

NO5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

NO5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Awareness about CCS in Norway is relatively high (Whitmarsh et al. 2019, Coombes 2019).
CCS is a very visible topic in public discussions in Norway, partly due to increased media and
public attention to climate issues, but also governmental investment in high-profile projects
such as Mongstad and Northern Lights have contributed to raise awareness of and knowledge
about CCS technology, although Bryhn et al. (2018) suggest that CCS is too technical in the
manner it is presented to the public, which creates a barrier for the public in understanding
CCS.

235
NO5.2 National advocates for CCS
There is a broad consensus in favour of CCS among all political parties. This commitment is
evident and visible in their political programmes and part of public discourse.

Environmental NGOs such as Bellona and Norges Naturvernforbund (Friends of the Earth
Norway), and ZERO are strong and visible supporters of CCS.

Development of CCS technology in Norway is also jointly supported by the Confederation of

Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) and the trade unions.

NO5.3 Public engagement

Given the general awareness of climate change and the visibility of high profile, mainly
publically funded CCS projects, public engagement is very visible. Similar to what is seen in
public discussions on climate change, the discourse on CCS in social media and public press
and popular science journals is often polarised. Critics express doubts about the necessity of
CCS, the global effect of Norway investing in carbon storage, the cost to the public and, to
some extent, safety concerns. Supporters emphasise the need for mitigating GHG national
emission, taking our share of global responsibility, and striving to set an example for other
countries to follow. In general the public supports the government’s efforts toward CCS.

According to Karlstrøm and Ryghaug (2014), public attitudes to CCS in Norway (related to
production of natural gas) was “neither positive nor negative”, reflecting discussions over the
environmental merits of CCS. The same study also suggests that public and broad political
support for CCS in Norway could be due to it being associated with industrial development.
As suggested by Leiss and Larkin (2019) and Coombes (2019) the fact that storage in Norway
will be carried out offshore, away from populated areas make it easier for the public to accept.

236
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in POLAND (PL; as of 30th June 2021)

PL1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The national programme “Assessment of formations and structures for safe CO2 geological
storage, including monitoring plans” (2008–2012) included an itemisation and pre-
characterisation of formations and structures suitable for CO2 storage, provided that further
surveys under exploration permits for storage sites are carried out. These results are the basis
for the preparation of work-plans for detailed geological characterisation of a potential
storage site and baseline monitoring, including drilling of new exploratory wells (or CO2 test
injection wells), new seismic and other geophysical surveys.

As part of the regional studies an estimate of the CO2 storage potential for the considered
geological formations and structures has been provided. These estimates relate to the static,
effective storage capacity. The (very roughly) estimated potential for storage in saline aquifers
is 11.66 Gt CO2 for 45 structures in the formations of Paleozoic, Mesozoic (the greatest
potential, especially for the Jurassic) and Cenozoic (Miocene). If we omit the Cretaceous
structures, an estimated storage potential of 9.17 Gt for the 35 structures remains.
Additionally, for regional Cambrian and Carboniferous aquifers the potential was estimated
as 2.84 Gt. Hence, the saline aquifers have a total storage potential of approximately 12-
14.5 Gt (Wójcicki et al. 2014).

The potential for storage in the hydrocarbon structures is 784-1,021 Mt. These are mostly
depleted gas fields; the share of the selected oil fields, of various degree of depletion, is less
than 10% of the above values.

The potential for storage in coal beds can be estimated as 20-100 Mt CO2 (the first value is
for the considered possible exploration permit areas within the Upper Silesian Coal Basin
(USCB), the second for the entire considered area of USCB - coal seams at depths of 1-2 km;
Wójcicki et al. 2014).

Research works related to CO2 storage assessment, storage options, potentials and
capacities are currently conducted in the framework of the STRATEGY CCUS project which
will provide each of the promising regions in Southern and Eastern Europe (including Silesia
region in Poland) with CCUS scenarios for short, medium and long-term delivery, and based
on results from various completed and current European projects. The scenarios will consider
a wide range of issues, including CO2 storage capacity.

237
The "Interactive Atlas of presenting the possibility of geological sequestration of CO2 in
Poland" has been created based on the results of the national programme “Assessment of
formations and structures for safe CO2 geological storage, including monitoring plans”
(Wójcicki et al. 2008, Wójcicki et al. 2014).

No application for a CO2-storage exploration license has been submitted, nor has a license for
CO2 storage in Poland been granted to date.

PL2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
PL2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
• TAURON Wytwarzanie SA Łagisza Power Plant – adsorption DR-VPSA (Dual-Reflux
Vacuum-Pressure Swing Adsorption), hard coal, fluidised bed boiler for supercritical
parameters 460 MWe, 100 m3n/h of flue gas, 13% CO2, capture rate 90%, years 2013–
2014. Funding from National Centre for Research and Development, Research Task no 2
of the strategic programme “Advanced energy technologies” realised in years 2010–2015
by Częstochowa University of Technology, Eurol Innovative Technology Solutions Sp. z
o.o., TAURON Wytwarzanie S.A.
• TAURON Wytwarzanie SA Łaziska Power Plant – a pilot amine-based CO2 capture plant.
Funding from industry: TAURON Polska Energia and TAURON Wytwarzanie S.A. Two
directions of research: 1) CO2 capture, with funding from the National Centre for Research
and Development, Research Task no 1 of the strategic programme ”Advanced energy
technologies”, from a power plant with the parameters hard coal, a pulverised bed boiler
(200 MW), 200 m3n/h of the flue gas, 13.5% CO2, and a capture rate of 90%. 2) CO2
conversion: The KicInnoEnergy CO2-SNG project demonstrating the conversion of CO2
captured from the flue gas plus hydrogen produced by an electrolyser to synthetic natural
gas (SNG).
• Jaworzno III – the mobile installation created in the Łaziska Power Plant was utilised in
the Jaworzno power plant for the investigation of capture processes on fluidised bed
boiler (2018–2019).

PL2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
There were no projects oriented only to transport. CO2 transport was always part of other
projects.

238
PL2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
Studies for establishing a future CO2 test injection at a site close to the TAURON power plants
(Southern Poland region) were conducted before 2014.

A pilot test for enhanced coal-bed methane (ECBM) recovery named RECOPOL (Reduction of
CO2 Emissions by Means of CO2 Storage in the Silesian coal basin of Poland) started in
November 2001 in Poland. The RECOPOL project was the first European field demonstration
of ECBM. The Polish partner in this undertaking was the Central Mining Institute. The
RECOPOL site was located in the west central Upper Silesian basin in the South of Poland near
the Czech border. Liquid CO2 from an industrial source was first injected in August 2004.
Continuous injection started in April 2005 after reservoir stimulation. The total amount of CO2
injected was 760 t between August 2004 and the end of June 2005 with 68 t CO2 produced
back (van Bergen et al. 2006).

No further pilot or demonstration projects on CO2 geological storage are currently in operation
or in preparation.

PL2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
In 2008, the Polish Government formally submitted information to the European Commission
on two CCS demonstration projects possibly to be developed: 1) at Bełchatów Power Plant
and 2) in Kędzierzyn (polygeneration project). However, both projects were abandoned due to
financial problems (Wróblewska 2014).

The Bełchatów project was significantly advanced before abandonment. The plan was to
construct a full-scale capture plant (1.8 Mt/year) using Alstom’s advanced amines technology
at the new 858 MWe lignite-fired unit. The EU EEPR grant was awarded by the European
Commission to the project. The project was also submitted to the EU NER 300 programme.
However, due to difficulties with closing a financial plan the project was stopped in 2013. The
lignite-fired unit is built as CO2 capture-ready. CO2 transportation was foreseen in the form of
a pipeline and associated infrastructure to transport compressed CO2 from the capture plant
to the storage site. CO2 storage was included in the project in the form of injection of
pressurised CO2 into deep saline aquifers for permanent storage.

The Polygeneration project with CO2 capture on the Kedzierzyn Chemical Plant aimed at the
establishment of a zero-emission facility combining power engineering with chemical
production. The project consisted of a coal gasification plant for synthesis gas production for
chemicals (methanol and hydrogen) as well as the production of high-pressure steam for co-
generation of electricity and heat, and a second plant integrated with gas and steam turbines
in an IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) configuration, including CO2 removal

239
before combustion of the syngas in the gas turbine of the IGCC system. Captured CO2 was to
be transported and stored in selected geological structures of the Mesozoic basin. The
Kędzierzyn polygeneration project was abandoned in 2011.

PL2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The STRATEGY CCUS project funded by the European Union aims to produce local
development plans and business models tailored to industry’s needs in eight regions
identified as promising for CCUS. The development plans will also define CO2 transport
corridors between local CCUS clusters of industry, and connecting with North Sea CCUS
infrastructure, in order to reduce costs and contribute to a Europe-wide CCUS infrastructure.
One of the promising start-up regions was selected in Poland, i.e. the Upper Silesia in Poland
(including the industrial areas of Katowice, Rybnik and Będzin).

PL3. National policies, legislation and regulations

PL3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Poland’s National Energy and Climate Plan for the years 2021–2030 (NECP PL) sets the
following climate and energy goals for 2030:

• -7% in sectors not covered by the ETS system compared to the level in 2005 by
reducing emissions in transport, construction and agriculture, taking into account the
beneficial effects of CO2 absorption by ecosystems and the flexibility associated with
land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF);
• 21-23% of RES share in gross final energy consumption by 2030 (total consumption in
electricity, heating and cooling as well as for transport purposes) including yearly
increases in the share of RES in heating and cooling by an average of 1.1 percentage
point per year; 14% share of renewable energy in transport; 32% RES share in electricity
production in 2030. Achievement of the targets is by support and promotion
mechanisms, use of advanced biofuels, introducing offshore wind energy and
increasing the dynamics of development of renewable energy micro installations;
• improving energy efficiency – 23% reduction of primary energy consumption
comparing to the PRIMES 2007 forecast (the development of ecological and effective
heating systems, the production of heat in cogeneration, intelligent networks and the
functioning of mechanisms that stimulate the saving of energy end-use and pro-saving
behaviour; in terms of energy efficiency and the improvement of housing conditions
developing a long-term strategy for the renovation of domestic stocks of residential
and non-residential buildings, public and private);

240
 • the share of coal in electricity generation will be systematically reduced – in 2030 it
will reach the level of 56-60% and in 2040 the downward trend will be maintained;
• implementation of nuclear energy in Poland; commissioning of the first nuclear power
unit 1-1.5 GW in 2033 and another five units in the next years up to 6-9 GW.

The Ministry of Energy is working on the project "Polish Energy Policy" (PEP), which will
determine the government's long-term vision for the energy sector. The project, which begun
in November 2019, provides for an evolutionary transformation of the electricity production
sector towards fewer emissions, at a pace that guarantees energy security and is not
threatening the competitiveness of the economy. The goals of the state energy policy also
include energy efficiency, reducing the impact of the energy sector on the environment, and
the optimal use of Polish energy resources. The objectives of PEP2040 are consistent with
Poland’s NECP and assume a reduction of CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030 (in relation to 1990).

The 2030 National Environmental Policy defines the development strategy in the areas of
environment and water management. No reference is made to CCS, assumed biomass
sequestration, or wooden construction.

The Strategy for Responsible Development – Programme for Silesia 2017 assumes that
innovations in the energy sector will primarily concern the reduction of negative impact on the
environment by the mining industry. The subject of initiatives reported under the European
Commission Programme will be research and development in the field of clean coal
technologies, alternative forms of coal mining, and CO2 capture, use and storage.

PL3.2 National legislation and regulations

The implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC took place in 2014 in the announcement of the
uniform text of the Act of 9th June 2011 of the Geological and Mining Law allowing
underground storage of CO2 in order to conduct a demonstration project 11 on carbon capture
and storage (currently applicable Act of the Geological and Mining Law: Journal of Laws 2019
item 868):

- For new installations of combustion of fuels in order to generate electricity with a

capacity of ≥300 MW, it is necessary to draw up and submit to the marshal of the
province an ecological review, including assessment of readiness to adapt carbon
dioxide capture installations on the basis of an analysis of the availability of
underground CO2 storage facilities, technical feasibility and economic efficiency of
the CO2 transport network, technical feasibility and economic modernisation of
installations for adaptation to carbon capture.

11
As defined in Commission Decision 2010/670/EC.

241
 - Activities in the field of underground storage of CO2 require a license, which is
granted by the minister for the environment. The concession will be granted only
for demonstration projects.

Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 8th December 2017 on mining plant operation
plans (Journal of Laws of 11th December 2017, item 2293) specifies the detailed requirements
for mining plant operational plans for underground storage of CO2. The operational plan
should specify, among other items, the quantity, composition and characteristics of the
injected CO2, the characteristics of the underground CO2 storage site, geological,
hydrogeological and geological and engineering conditions of the underground carbon
storage complex, description of the “mining area” (here: for CO2 storage), natural, technical
and environmental hazards, anticipated organisational and technical measures necessary for
ensuring occupational safety and universal safety as well as protection of mineral deposits,
groundwater and other elements of the environment, as well as envisaged undertakings aimed
at preventing carbon leakage.

The Act of 10th April 1997 Energy Law (Journal of Laws 2019, item 755) regulates the issue of
CO2 transport.

The Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 3rd September 2014 on areas in which
the localisation of geological CO2 storage sites is allowed, OJ 2014, item 1272, defines areas
that may be considered for storage site exploration: the only available place in this respect is
Cambrian reservoir within exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Poland.

PL4. Research
PL4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
In the years 2014–2017 research activities were mainly done in research projects funded from
Norway Grants within the Polish-Norwegian Research Programme operated by the National
Centre for Research and Development in Poland. Works have mainly focussed on potential
and development of CO2-EOR technology and CCUS clusters. In October 2020, six research
projects started that are related to several parts of the CCUS chain including CO2 storage with
funding from the POLNOR CCS 2019 Call of the Programme “Applied Research” implemented
under The Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014–2021. The objective of the Programme
“Applied Research” is to enhance performance of applied research in Poland through
improved research cooperation between Poland and Norway. The cooperation is to be based
on equal partnerships between Norwegian and Polish research institutions and enterprises.
The POLNOR CCS 2019 aims to support international, Polish-Norwegian research projects in
the area of carbon capture and storage including: Storage pilots, full value chain analysis, new
knowledge that facilitates large-scale CO2 storage, social science related to deployment of
CCS, development of CO2 capture solutions integrated in power and industry processes.

242
The Polish Ministry of Environment was funding the national programme "Assessment of
formations and structures suitable for safe CO2 storage including monitoring plans" in the
years 2008–2012.

Also research institutions (e.g. Central Mining Institute, PGI-NRI, MEERI, AGH-UST) use
funding provided by Ministry of Science and Higher Education in their statutory activities or
research grants related to geological storage of CO2.

Table PL: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (-) (x) (x) (x)
Project examples

STRATEGY CCUS

Technological

Technological

Technological
programme,

programme,

programme,
programme

programme
Initiative I

Initiative I

Initiative I

RECOPOL

RECOPOL
National

National

National

National

National
X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

PL4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

The following research institutes are involved in research related to several parts of CCUS
chain including CO2 storage:

- AGH University of Science and Technology (AGH UST)

- Central Mining Institute (CMI)
- Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute (PGI-NRI)
- Mineral Economy and Energy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of
Sciences (MEERI PAS)
- Oil and Gas Institute - National Research Institute (OGI)
- PBG Geophysical Exploration, Company Ltd. (PBG)
- Silesian University of Technology
- Warsaw University of Technology
- West Pomeranian University of Technology
- Gdańsk University of Technology

243
 - Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery Polish Academy of Sciences
- Wrocław University of Science and Technology
- Cracow University of Technology CUT
- University of Warsaw
- Institute of Chemical Engineering - Polish Academy of Sciences
- Institute for Chemical Processing of Coal
- Institute of Low Temperature and Structure Research - Polish Academy of
Sciences
- Czestochowa University of Technology

PL4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

In Poland the following key research infrastructures devoted to the advanced research studies
on CO2 storage, capture and transport were included in ECCSEL within the H2020 Infradev-3
activities:

1. High pressure thermogravimetric analyser (HP-TGA, Główny Instytut Górnictwa)

2. Fixed bed reactor (FBR, Główny Instytut Górnictwa)
3. Pilot-scale moving bed reactor (MBR, Główny Instytut Górnictwa)
4. Facilities to assess lithology, mineralogy and elemental as well isotopic composition
of rock samples (PGI-NRI PETRO-LAB, Polish Geological Institute – National
Research Institute)
5. Tools for monitoring of shallow subsurface as well as groundwater-soil system (PGI-
NRI GEOPH-LAB, Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute)

PL4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
The project “Strategic planning of Regions and Territories in Europe for low-carbon energy and
industry through CCUS Coordination and Support Action (CSA) (STRATEGY CCUS)” funded in
the frame of Horizon 2020 (May 2019 to April 2022) aims at the preparation of strategic plans
for the development of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies in Eastern
and Central Europe within the following time horizons: short (up to 3 years), medium (3-10
years) and long (over 10 years); development of a pan-European CCUS infrastructure and
plans for carbon dioxide corridors between local industrial CCUS clusters (see also PL2.5).

244
PL5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
PL5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
CCS has been a concern for the public from the very beginning. In addition to financial issues,
there is also public uncertainty about the safety of CO2 storage as well as on its impact on the
environment.

In summary, in most cases CCS installations are criticised for issues such as (Jankowski et
al. 2014):

- high investment and operating costs,

- high energy consumption of capture,
- interference with geological structures during CO2 injection,
- uncertainty of CO2 binding underground,
- risk related to possible failures - escaping carbon dioxide can be a lethal threat to
people and animals.

In recent years, public awareness surveys for CCS have been conducted, the results of which
were published in two articles. The first article found positive acceptance of CCS, however, to
a large extent there is a problem of ignorance of this technology and a lack of decisiveness.
Analysis of the results of the study showed the need to update school curricula in the field of
environmental protection (Weiss & Lutyński 2018). The other article presents the issue of
social acceptance for CCS as a potential means of reducing CO2 emissions in Poland. This
problem is essential for the implementation of large CCS projects. Organising relevant
information campaigns related to new techniques of reducing CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere may help in the implementation of CCS projects. The most important thing in
such campaigns is to present information to the laypersons in a proper way (Weiss & Lutyński
2017).

Therefore, in recent years, due to the lack of financing for the development of CO2 capture
technology and the lack of social acceptance for the geological storage of CO2, particular
attention has been paid to the possibility of CO2 use in industrial processes (the so-called
utilisation).

PL5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

PL5.3 Public engagement

None.

245
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in PORTUGAL (PT; as of 30th June 2021)

PT1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The interesting areas for CO2 storage in Portugal are in the sedimentary basins along the
coastal Atlantic margin of the country (more than two thirds of Portugal’s mainland are
underlain by basement (Variscan) igneous and metamorphic rocks rendering geological CO2
storage infeasible). Although less-common options for CO2 storage, such as ultramafic and
mafic rocks for mineral carbonation (Moita et al. 2020, Romão et al. 2016) and CO2 hydrates
(Bernardes et al. 2015), may have potential to be applied in Portugal, the main opportunities
are in deep saline aquifers since there are no exploited oil and gas fields. Coal seams in a
carboniferous basin in the north of the country were in the past the subject of some research
(Lemos de Sousa et al. 2007), but the potential seems limited. Due to the large Portuguese
continental shelf, composed mainly of sedimentary rocks, offshore opportunities play a major
role (Carneiro et al. 2015).

GIS mapping (e.g. stratigraphy, seismicity, neotectonics, location of CO2 industrial sources,
etc.) and geological/ geophysical characterisation studies have been conducted to screen
potential areas in the scope of nationally funded projects – KTEJO (Pereira et al. 2014) – and
international research projects – EU-FP7 COMET (Boavida et al. 2013) and CCS-PT (Seixas et
al. 2015). The promising areas are located in the following sedimentary basins:

a) Porto Basin with a total area of 2,150 km2. It is located entirely offshore in the
Northwest of Portugal. It has an estimated storage capacity of approximately 1.73Gt
CO2 (central value P50), with an uncertainty interval ranging between 0.87 Gt CO2 (P90)
and 3.46 Gt CO2 (P10);
b) Lusitanian Basin with a total area of 22 000 km2. The basin occurs both onshore and
offshore, along most of the western coast of the country. It has an estimated storage
capacity of approximately 3.19 Gt CO2 (central value P50), with an uncertainty interval
ranging between 1.59 Gt CO2 (P90) and 6.34 Gt CO2 (P10);
c) Algarve Basin with a total area of 8500 km2, which occurs both onshore and offshore
along the Southern coast of Portugal. This basin extends into Spanish territory where
it is called the Cadiz basin. The estimated storage capacity of this basin is
approximately 2.17 Gt CO2, with an uncertainty interval ranging between 1.09 Gt CO2
(P90) and 4.34 Gt CO2 (P10).
The theoretical storage capacity of the deep saline aquifers in Portugal is approximately
7.09 Gt CO2 (central value P50), with an uncertainty interval ranging between 3.54 Gt CO2 (P90)

246
and 14.1 Gt CO2 (P10) (Pereira et al. 2021a). Figure PT1 illustrates the geographic distribution
of the four sedimentary basins with the potential thirty-six storage units of three different
reservoirs (Upper Triassic, Lower Cretaceous and Miocene) and the storage capacity
estimates (P50) of each unit.

The identified storage units present promising geological indicators (e.g. suitable reservoir
properties at desired depths for CO2 injection in the dense phase, relevant storage capacities,
etc.), although several factors (such as the lack of data from direct measurements, the
presence of productive freshwater aquifers overlying the potential reservoirs, relevant active
seismicity, etc.) clearly require more detailed assessment. Future data acquisition and
information gathering may lead to a revision of the storage capacities and feasibilities of
potential storage units in each basin.

Figure PT1:Location of the thirty-six storage units in Portugal and respective clusters. The individual
polygons refer to the storage units in each cluster (yellow circles/ ellipses).

247
The most promising region in mainland Portugal, being studied under the ongoing European
project STRATEGY CCUS, is the Lusitanian Basin (both offshore and onshore) with 17
potential storage units that have been identified (storage clusters S03, S04 and S05 of
Fig. PT1). In general, this region is reasonably well understood due to the hydrocarbon
exploration activities, providing a large amount of geophysical surveys (2D seismic reflection
data) and some deep wells spatially distributed in both onshore and offshore zones. In
addition, the central and northern sectors of the Lusitanian Basin are the only regions in
Portugal where recent 3D seismic surveys were acquired, one offshore and the other onshore,
along with new boreholes. The interpretation and analysis of these new direct and indirect
geophysical measurements will reduce the uncertainty about reservoir properties and will
provide further information to estimate the storage capacities more accurately, but the work
is still ongoing as the data only recently became publicly available. The potential reservoirs in
the Lusitanian basin are the siliciclastic layers of the Torres Vedras Group (Lower Cretaceous)
and the Grés de Silves Fm. (Upper Triassic).

Geologically, the Torres Vedras Group reservoirs, located offshore, are composed of
sandstones and conglomerates characterised by high permeabilities (and therefore good
injectivity is expected). However, the quality of the seal (the Cacém Fm.) is the parameter with
the higher uncertainty. On the other hand, the Silves Group potential reservoirs, extending both
onshore and offshore, have an excellent caprock in the Dagorda Fm., well-known from onshore
outcrops, although low injectivity is expected due to the high uncertainty about the
heterogeneity and permeability of the reservoir layers.

The confidence of the storage resource (i.e. the deep saline aquifers) of each potential
reservoir was evaluated using the Boston Square Analysis method to assess the attribute
suitability and data quality of several parameters (Pereira et al. 2021b). From this assessment,
the main knowledge gaps regarding these potential storage units are injectivity and fracture
parameters, for onshore sites, and seal quality for offshore sites. Besides these sources of
uncertainty, the lack of hydraulic tests at desired depths is also an important knowledge gap
to be filled for more reliable local estimations of the permeability values of both reservoir
types.

In addition to the storage resource confidence, the classification of the deep saline aquifer
maturity has been conducted for the seventeen potential storage units in the Lusitanian Basin.
Based on the four-tier maturity pyramid, the offshore units (Lower Cretaceous and Upper
Triassic reservoirs) were classified as Tier 1 (Pereira et al. 2021a), corresponding to the
regional assessment for the estimates of geologic formation and storage unit capacities. The
onshore units (Upper Triassic reservoirs) were classified as Tier 2, consisting in the discovery
assessment for the estimation of storage capacity of each daughter unit (i.e. suitable
reservoir) – Castelo Viegas Fm. and Penela Fm. belonging to the Silves Group (Pereira et al.
2021b).

248
The total storage capacity of the offshore storage units is approximately 2.9 Gt CO2 (central
value P50), with an uncertainty interval ranging between 1.4 Gt CO2 (P90) and 5.4 Gt CO2 (P10).
The four onshore storage units have lower geological storage capacities than those offshore,
with an estimated central value (P50) of approximately 0.3 Gt CO2, within an uncertainty
interval ranging between 0.1 Gt CO2 (P90) and 0.5 Gt CO2 (P10). Thus, the total storage
capacity of potential storage units in the Lusitanian Basin is approximately 5.9 Gt CO2
considering an optimistic scenario (i.e. P10). The storage costs for the onshore and offshore
operations are about EUR 3-4/ton and EUR 12-17/ton, respectively. Compared to the onshore
costs, higher offshore storage costs are expected despite the lower environmental and health
risks, and a better social acceptance for CCUS deployment.

It is relevant to mention the existence of the PilotSTRATEGY project funded by the European
Union, recently approved, focusing on the characterisation of an adequate location for an
injection pilot in the onshore or offshore setting of the Lusitanian Basin. This multi-disciplinary
project integrates the collaboration between Portuguese local teams from institutions/
industry partners, and the local teams of institutions/ industry partners from Spain and France.

Currently there is no specific CO2 storage Atlas available, but a CCS Roadmap for Portugal
with potential storage areas/ sites exists from previous studies.

PT2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
PT2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

PT2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

PT2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
The ongoing EU funded project PilotSTRATEGY (2021–2026) aims to characterise two areas
(one onshore and one offshore) for the implementation of a pilot storage site. PilotSTRATEGY
work includes detailed geo-characterisation, feasibility studies and preliminary design or pre-

249
front end engineering and design studies. Regional stakeholders and the local public will be
involved in developing recommendations and concepts as part of the pilot conceptualisation
and design. Also, they will be involved in the decision about the onshore or offshore location
of the pilot.

PT2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

PT2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

In the ongoing EU-funded project STRATEGY CCUS (2019–2022), a cluster development is
being analysed for potential future development in the Lusitanian basin. The cluster
encompasses emission facilities that spread from the Lisbon-Setúbal industrial area to the
Figueira da Foz region. The main industrial sectors included in the cluster are the cement, lime
and glass sectors, with the pulp-and-paper sector having a possible business case related to
BECCS and negative emissions.

PT3. National policies, legislation and regulations

PT3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Portugal is in line with the objectives outlined in terms of the European Green Deal from the
European Commission of converging to carbon neutrality by 2050. Portugal's international
commitment led the government to implement the Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality 2050 (APA
2019), which was published through Council of Ministers Resolution 107/2019 of 1st July
2019. This aims essentially at identifying and analysing the alternative trajectories, technically
feasible, economically viable and socially accepted, to achieve the goal of a neutral carbon
economy by 2050.

Thus, Portugal aims to reduce emissions between 45% - 55% by 2030, between 65% - 75% by
2040 and between 85% - 90%, compared to 2005. The remaining emissions would be offset
through land use and forests. Despite these ambitious targets, where in general all national
sectors (e.g. energy industry, industry, buildings, transport, etc.) play a key role for carbon
neutrality, it is expected that by 2050, and in particular in the industry sector, it will have a less
significant emission reduction of around 72% - 88% when compared to 2005 (APA 2019). It
would be in this sector, and specifically in the cement sector, that the application of CCS/CCUS
technologies could play an essentially decisive role, not only for the commitment of national

250
carbon neutrality in 2050 but also for the contribution of achieving the so-called negative CO2
emissions.

The Carbon Neutrality Roadmap is under revision, in part motivated by the National Hydrogen
Strategy, a framework document under public discussion, and a much larger role for CCUS will
probably result, since the National Hydrogen Strategy includes the utilisation of CO2 for
production of methane and methanol.

PT3.2 National legislation and regulations

According to the Portuguese Republic Diary (i.e. “Diário da República”) (1st serie, nº 53), the
Decree-law (no. 60/2012), established on 14th March 2012, transposes directive no.
2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 23th April 2009, and establishes
the legal regime for the geological storage activity of CO2. Article 2º (Decree-law) states that
the deployment of CO2 geological storage can be applied to: a) national territory, including the
territorial sea and contiguous zone; b) Economic and Exclusive Zone (Portuguese ZEE); and
c) continental shelf.
Relevant aspects regarding the national legislation for the activities of capture, transport and
geological storage of CO2 are the following:
1) An environmental license is required, under the Legal Regime for Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (PCIP).
2) An environmental impact study must be conducted, under the Legal Evaluation Regime
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
3) The provision of a financial guarantee is required, under the legal regime of liability for
environmental damage.
4) DGEG is the licensing authority (but offshore activities must also go through a
permitting procedure with the Marine Authority).
5) No licensing necessary for pilot injection < 100 kt of CO2 (for scientific research
purposes, not commercial).

PT4. Research
PT4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Research on CCUS in Portugal can be funded by two mechanisms that include partial or
entirely national funds:
- The Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia -
FCT), which is the national institution that funds research at an academic level. Calls
are not specifically made about CCUS or even parts of the chain, but rather for “all

251
 scientific subjects”. It is the primary funding institution to which R&D institutions have
applied for research on CCUS.
- ANI, Agência National da Inovação, which promotes innovation in SME and large
companies, often together with R&D institutions, including programme Portugal 2020.

The research topics in CO2 storage associated with international cooperation and EU-funding
are presented in section PT4.4.

Table PT: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed X X - - - - - - -
INCARBON
examples
Project

KTEJO,

KTEJO

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

PT4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Several national institutions and universities have been involved in research and development
related to capture and geological storage of CO2:

- University of Évora – Earth Sciences Institute (ICT);

- University Fernando Pessoa – Department of Energy, Environment and Health
Research Unit (FP-ENAS);
- University of Lisbon (NOVA) – Research Center for Environmental and Sustainability
(CENSE);
- National Laboratory of Energy and Geology (LNEG);
- Directorate General for Energy and Geology (DGEG);
- Collaborative laboratory NET4CO2.

252
PT4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure
The academia-industry collaborative laboratory NET4CO2 maintains laboratory facilities for
testing CO2 capture through the continuous formation of gas hydrates using a patented
NETMIX technology.

PT4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
- FP7 COMET: Integrated infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage in the west
Mediterranean, joint research Project co-financed by the European Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7). This project assessed CO2 transport and storage in West
Mediterranean area, specifically, the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Spain) and
Morocco. Coordinator: Portugal. 1/2010 through 12/2012.
- CSS Roadmap for Portugal: CO2 capture and storage in Portugal: a bridge to a low
carbon economy (2015), co-funded by Global CCS Institute. This project evaluated the
role the CCS technology could play in the Portuguese energy and industry system as a
mitigation option to achieve deep GHG emissions reductions. The cost effectiveness
of its deployment, and the risks and additional benefits it may provide for economic
development are also analysed.
- STRATEGY CCUS (ongoing): an ambitious three-year project (2019–2022) funded by
the European Union to support the development of low-carbon energy and industry in
Southern and Eastern Europe. This project aims to encourage and support initiatives
within each region by producing local development plans and business models tailored
to industry’s needs.
- PilotSTRATEGY (ongoing): a five-year project (2021–2026) to characterise sites for
implementation of CO2 storage pilots. PilotSTRATEGY will investigate deep saline
aquifers in detail in three regions of Southern Europe: Paris Basin (France), Lusitanian
Basin (Portugal) and Ebro Basin (Spain). At the end of the project, the level of site
characterisation in these three regions will be sufficient to allow a final investment
decision to be made and for storage permitting and project approval to be obtained. In
two further regions of Eastern Europe, West Macedonia (Greece) and Upper Silesia
(Poland), PilotSTRATEGY will increase the maturity and confidence level of
understanding of deep saline aquifer storage resources.

253
PT5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
PT5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Although CCS technology is a relatively new concept for the general public in Portugal, the
national partners involved in the development of CCS in Portugal have held workshops/
webinars in the past two years under the scope of project STRATEGY CCUS. Activities
included implementing a Regional Stakeholder Committee (RSC) that involved representatives
of several sectors that could be interested by deployment of CO2 storage in the Lusitanian
basin. The main goal is to raise awareness in the RSC members about the importance of CCS
and its potential to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Although the view of most stakeholders is positive towards the need to consider CCUS in CO2
emissions reduction scenarios for the regional industry, not all participants are convinced of
the relevance of geological storage of CO2 to achieve carbon neutrality, suggesting the need
for more utilisation instead.

PT5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

PT5.3 Public engagement

Workshop “Industry Challenges in the Transition towards a Low Carbon Economy - The role of
CCS technology”. Green Business Week, 5th March 2015, Lisbon. The event occurred during a
business week about renewable and green technologies and engaged with SME and industrial
players for presentation of the national roadmap for CO2 capture and storage, project CCS-PT.

Seminar “Perspectives for capture, transport and sequestration of CO2 in Portugal”, 4th and 5th
June 2014, Lisbon. The event addressed mostly academia and university students and
intended mostly to spread knowledge about the technology and present the state of
development of technology worldwide.

Seminar “CO2 storage in the Clean Development Mechanism: Opportunities in the Community
of Portuguese Speaking Countries”, 19-20th September 2013, Lisbon. An event through
invitation with representatives of the policy makers from all countries in the Community of
Portuguese Speaking Countries, aiming essentially to identify grounds of cooperation on CCS
research.

254
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in ROMANIA (RO; as of 30th June 2021)

RO1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
For Romania only saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields have been found to offer
suitable storage options. The storage capacity is considered sufficient to store emissions for
many years and was estimated to be 18.6 Gt in saline aquifers and 4 Gt in depleted
hydrocarbon fields (Rütters et al. 2013).

There is no existing national CO2 Storage Atlas in Romania.

RO2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
GETICA CCS was a government-initiated demonstration project, officially supported by the
Prime Minister and coordinated by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and the Business
Environment and endorsed by the Global CCS Institute. Within the project, CO2 capture
(1.5 Mt/year CO2) was foreseen at the TURCENI Energy Complex in the Oltenia region, the
most energy intensive region at national level, responsible for about 40% (24.5 Mt CO2 per
year) of the total amount of CO2 emissions. Different parts of this project are presented in the
subsections on capture, transport and storage and on full-chain projects (RO2.1 to 2.4).

RO2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

capture & projects/sites in preparation
As a part of the GETICA CCS demonstration project, a capture plant was to be fitted to one of
the existing six units in CE Turceni SA, namely to Unit no. 6 of 330 MW. Unit no. 6 is an existing,
rehabilitated power unit, fuelled by local lignite, equipped with a wet flue gas desulfurisation
plant and a dense slurry installation for ash and slag discharge.

The optimum technology choice of post-combustion carbon capture technologies should be

tailored to the specifics of the individual projects. Considering the time schedule of the
GETICA CCS demonstration project, the selection concentrated on Chilled Ammonia Process
(CAP) and the Advanced Amine Process (AAP), as they were the technologies furthest in
development and closest to commercialisation.

255
RO2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
transport & projects/sites in preparation
The GETICA CCS demonstration project included CO2 transportation from the capture facility
in Turceni to a geological storage site. Transportation was planned to be performed by an
onshore pipeline. Dense phase CO2 has been selected as being the most cost effective
solution for long-distance pipeline transportation.

The Feasibility Study analysed two CO2 transport pipeline routes to the first-choice and
alternate storage sites described below, Zone no. 5 and Zone no. 1, respectively. A pipeline
route to the primary storage choice, Zone no. 5, was developed. As a backup, Zone no. 1 could
still be a possible storage site following an assessment based on further investigation. A 40
km long pipeline was considered to transport the CO2 from the carbon capture plant both to
Zone no. 5 and to Zone no.1. Due to the fact that the pipeline will pass nearby populated areas,
a minimum clearance of 500 m from the existing villages and building has been considered.
The pipeline will be installed in a hilly area, and some sections of the pipe route are subject to
landslides. The pipeline design pressure-temperature envelope is: 0-140 bar, 0-50ºC. The
foreseen operating range is 80-120 bar, 0-40ºC.

RO2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
The GETICA CCS demonstration project included geological storage. The selection of
potential CO2 storage sites was made based on all the data that were made available by oil
and gas companies, comprising 241 2D seismic lines and 141 well information packages,
geological cross-sections, geological and geophysical maps and data from literature. The
selection was made by considering an investigation area of 50 km radius around Turceni. The
analysis of the available data concluded that the best solution for storage would be the
Sarmatian formation. Based mainly on data made available to GeoEcoMar for the Feasibility
Study, 11 possible storage sites were selected. Acquisition of additional data from oil and gas
companies allowed this list to be reduced to 7 potential storage sites. A final selection of the
two most suitable sites for CO2 storage named Zone 1 and Zone 5 was made on the basis of
storage capacity, structural framework, reservoir properties and seal.

The design of the surface and injection facilities will be made at the beginning of the
Development Phase (Phase 3) and will be based on the characterisation made in Phase 2. The
preliminary dynamic simulations show that up to 9 injectors could be needed for Zone 1 and
5 injectors for Zone 5, with a large distance between them.

256
The finalised definition of the storage site (proposed during FEED & Detailed Engineering)
will include the validated locations of the injection wells and associated surface facilities,
including the compression/pumping station.

RO2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
There are no CCS projects operating currently in Romania. The only project proposed for this
country was the demonstration project GETICA CCS, for which the feasibility study was
completed in 2011. The project competed for NER 300 programme, was selected on the
waiting list, but was stalled due to the lack of funding and government support. The
designated storage operator for one of the two deep saline aquifers identified as suitable
storage sites was the partially state-owned company ROMGAZ (operator for gas reservoirs
and seasonal storage of natural gas). For GETICA CCS project, new injection and monitoring
wells were planned to be drilled. The feasibility study also included a section addressing the
problem of old legacy wells (well integrity study), present on the proposed storage complex
and intercepting the storage reservoir. The study revealed the presence of many legacy wells
and pointed out the need for additional investigations in order to assure that these wells will
not become preferential leakage pathways for the injected CO2.

RO2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Danube CCUS cluster.

RO3. National policies, legislation and regulations

RO3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Taking into account the dramatic decrease of power production during the period 1989–2000
due to the severe recession caused by the transition to the market economy, Romania will
meet without any problems the national target set by Kyoto Protocol (8% reduction of GHGs
during 2008–2012) compared with 1989. After the restructuring process of the Romanian
economy, in the last years the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased, so it is expected
that CO2 emissions will continue to increase in the future, but to a lower level than in 1989. In
the Romanian energy sector it is both necessary and possible to i) increase energy efficiency
in energy production, distribution and end-use; ii) reduce carbon intensity of power sector by
switching from coal and fuel oil to natural gas; iii) promote policies aiming to cut down
subsidies which encourage market imperfections; iv) research, develop and increase the use
of renewable energy sources, (i.e. solar, wind, micro-hydro and biomass).

257
RO3.2 National legislation and regulations
Following the request of the European Commission to transpose Directive 31/2009 into
Member States’ national legislations, Romanian government issued the Emergency Ordinance
64/2011 on the CO2 geological storage. This ordinance was approved by Romanian
Parliament with some modifications in the form of the Law 114/2013. This law, together with
specific procedures for granting exploration and storage permits for CO2 geological storage
sites issued by National Agency for Mineral Resources (NAMR, Competent Authority both for
CO2 geological storage and for hydrocarbon operations), provides the legal framework for safe
geological storage of carbon dioxide. For CO2 geological storage, a dedicated service within
the agency was established in 2013. This service for CO2 geological storage coordinated the
elaboration of specific procedures for granting exploration and storage permits. No
solicitation was made so far.

NAMR also regulates hydrocarbon operations in Romania, including well operations and
transfer of assets between hydrocarbon licence holders. The agency establishes also
hydrocarbon concession perimeters and granting hydrocarbon licences. Regarding the
hydrocarbon wells and operations, these are regulated through Petroleum Law and specific
Orders of NAMR (procedures for application of Petroleum Law). These regulatory acts
establish the conditions for temporary and permanent abandonment of wells, lifting of
abandonment and the transfer of assets between hydrocarbon license holders. The transfer
is permitted so far only for hydrocarbon operations. It is not clear if the abandoned wells,
transferred to the state by petroleum license holders can be used for CO2 operations. There is
no regulatory act clearly specifying this.

For the safety of petroleum offshore operations, a governmental agency (Competent Authority
for Regulating Offshore Petroleum Operations to the Black Sea - ACROPO) was created in
2016, its attributions being stated within Law 165/2016. ACROPO must provide advises to
NAMR in granting petroleum licences within Black Sea and must ensure that the operators
fulfil their obligation in ensuring the safety of petroleum operations offshore according with
national and international legislation.

Other authorities involved in the process of permitting for CO2 geological storage, according
to OUG 64/2011 are:
i) National Agency for Environmental Protection, for approving the initial and updated (at least
once in 5 years) the monitoring plan, for imposing the restitution of greenhouse gas
allowances according to Governmental Decision 780/2006 in case of leakages.
ii) Local Agencies for Environmental Protection for granting the environmental permit.
iii) National Environmental Guard for organising and implementing a system of announced (at
least one per year during the operation period and once in five years till the transfer of
responsibility to the state) and unannounced inspections to the storage sites.
iv) Local authorities for approving the plans for site construction.

258
RO4. Research
RO4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
Work related to the CO2 geological storage began in Romania with the affiliation of the
GeoEcoMar to ENeRG in 2002 and continued with participation of the institute in international
projects related to CCS: as subcontractor in “CASTOR” project, as partner in “EU GeoCapacity”,
“CO2Net East”, “lmpact of communication”, “CGS Europe”, “CO2StoP” projects as well as in
similar national projects: “The National Programme of Carbon Capture and Storage for 2011–
2020 period” and “Geological storage” section of the Feasibility Study for the “Getica CCS
Demonstration Project”.

RO4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

GeoEcoMar, CO2 Club Association.

RO4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

RO4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
Apart from the current CCUS projects ENOS (ENabling ONshore CO2 storage in Europe), ALIGN
CCUS (Accelerating Low Carbon INdustrial Growth through CCUS) and ECO-BASE
(Establishing CO2 enhanced Oil recovery Business Advantages in South Eastern Europe),
GeoEcoMar is involved in the project STRATEGY CCUS (STrategic planning of Regions And
Territories in Europe for low-carbon enerGy and industrY through CCUS).The STRATEGY CCUS
project team, including GeoEcoMar specialists, is elaborating detailed plans for
comprehensive European CO2 gathering networks and industrial clusters linked to CO2 storage
sites via hubs, pipeline networks and shipping routes.

259
RO5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
RO5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
The most frequently identified issue linked to CCUS implementation mentioned by companies
in Romania was the lack of funding for supporting the development of CCUS projects.
Therefore, industrial companies (and energy companies as well) postpone the
implementation of CCUS projects, even though the CO2 emitters are obliged to buy emission
certificates to compensate for the CO2 emission, and the price of these emission certificates
has increased several times in the last years. Thus, the industrial sector that emits CO2 is
aware of CCS/CCUS technology, but does not see the business case.

In contrary, research institutes and university research centres in Romania show interest and
involvement in CCUS development, due to their participation in recent research projects.

The members of mass-media and the local public interviewed in Romania demonstrate little
knowledge or awareness about CCUS, but at the same time they expect the public to form a
positive attitude about CCUS, if CCUS would be developed in connection with local economic
interests. Regarding public acceptance, the respondents in Romania considered the level of
awareness about CCUS among the public to be very low (both for local and general publics),
and most respondents believed that public information campaigns should be launched in
order to build an informed opinion about CCUS and to prevent a negative attitude which could
be long-lasting.

RO5.2 National advocates for CCS

CO2Club is the NGO funded in 2007. Its main objective is to promote CCUS technology in
Romania. Over the years, the CO2Club has organised workshops, seminars and round tables
in order to inform the public and the stakeholders from various fields. The CO2Club takes part
in several international CCUS projects. Its involvement in international CCUS projects in recent
years is very important for the future of national CCUS projects in Romania.

RO5.3 Public engagement

Public engagement includes measures ranging from providing information, education, and
consultation to deliberation. Several studies have been conducted in the last 3 years. The aim
of one of the studies, made by the ALIGN CCUS project, was to understand success factors
and pitfalls in community engagement and community compensation for CCUS projects, and
to identify and close relevant knowledge gaps. The conclusions were that there is substantial
overlap in relative preferences for community compensation measures among citizens of
Romania, the UK, and Netherland, but there are also relevant differences between countries

260
when it comes to CCS acceptability and the evaluation of compensation measures. These
findings can provide a useful tool for researchers in this field looking to close knowledge gaps
as well as for stakeholders (e.g. project developers, authorities, community engagement
managers) wanting to understand how to effectively make use of community engagement
and community compensation in the CCUS context.

An example of public engagement is the international event: "ECO-BASE Seminar on Legal and
Regulatory Framework of CO2 Utilisation (EOR) and Geological Storage - South East Europe"
that was organised by the ECO-BASE project team in Bucharest on 17-18th September 2019.
The aim of this workshop was to facilitate direct contacts between representatives of the
important companies from oil and gas domain and companies with major CO2 emissions
(>100,000 t/year) from the whole industrial domain (energy, steel, cement etc.) as well as with
important representatives of the Romanian administrative and political structures.

261
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in the SLOVAK REPUBLIC (SK; as of 30th June 2021)

SK1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The Slovak Republic has been a member of consortia of European projects, which elaborated
initial information, estimating the theoretical storage capacities. The projects were CASTOR
(Christensen et al. 2006) and EU Geo Capacity (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al. 2009), coordinated
by the Geological Survey of Denmark.

In 2011 a national project was finished in Slovakia (Kucharič et al. 2011 - Quantitative
parameters of geological structures suitable for CO2 storage – in Slovak) with main goal to
identify and assess suitable geological structures for CO2 storage in Slovakia.

There is no existing national CO2 Storage Atlas in the Slovak Republic. Available and public is
the map of areas in which it is allowed to carry out geological exploration for establishing a
CO2 storage site (by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic).

There is no evidence of any filed or granted CO2 storage exploration license or storage permit
given by Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic and Ministry of Environment of the Slovak
Republic.

SK2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
SK2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SK2.2 Past and current demonstration/pilot projects for CO2 transport &
projects/sites in preparation
None.

262
SK2.3 Past and current demonstration/pilot projects for CO2 geological storage
& projects/sites in preparation
None.

SK2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SK2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

SK3. National policies, legislation and regulations

SK3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
According to EU Directive 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain
atmospheric pollutant (National Emission Ceilings Directive – NECD), the Slovak Republic
submitted the National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP), which is an act by Ministry
of Environment of the Slovak Republic to reduce air pollution and its associated risks to the
environment and human health by reducing of emissions of NOX, SO2, NH3, non-methane
volatile compounds (NMVOC), fine particular matter (PM2.5) and greenhouse gases (CO2 etc.)
for the years 2020–2030. NAPCP has to be updated at least every four years and contributes
to achieving of goals of air quality according EU Directive 2008/50/ES.

SK3.2 National legislation and regulations

The EU CCS Directive has been transposed to the national legislation by the CO2 Storage Act
No. 258/2011 Zb. that also includes an amendment of the Mining Act No. 44/1988 Zb. and
the Geological Act No. 569/2007 Zb. CO2 storage is generally enabled by legislation. The
storage site operator has first to obtain an exploration permit awarded by the Ministry of
Environment, and then, based on the assessment of the storage complex and its verified
geological model, get an Attestation of suitability of the natural geological structure for CO2
storage. This Attestation is issued by the Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic. Only
after that attestation, the operator can ask for a storage permit that is issued by the Main
Mining Office of the Slovak Republic. The operator is required to pay fees for exploration and
mining activities. The CO2 Storage Act significantly limits possible locations of a potential CO2

263
storage site by protecting suitable geothermal, hydrocarbon-bearing and similar structures,
thereby assigning lower priority to CO2 storage in comparison with other strategic ways of
subsurface use (Mikunda et al. 2020).

The responsible state administration bodies according to the CO2 Storage Act are the Ministry
of Environment of the Slovak Republic, the Main Mining Office of the Slovak Republic and its
District Mining Offices. The subsurface is owned by the state.

SK4. Research
SK4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
There is no national funding for research related to CCS.

The project “Quantitative parameters of geological structures suitable for CO2 storage (in
Slovak)” was finished in 2011 and it has been the only national project in Slovakia with the
main goal to identify and assess suitable geological structures for CO2 storage in Slovakia
(Kucharič et al. 2011 - in Slovak).

Table SK: Overview of research topics addressed by the nationally funded research project on CO2
storage in 2011.
Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed X (X) - X X X (X) (X) -

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

Other cooperation projects with private companies (iron and steel works plant and chemical
industry plant) were prepared in 2008 and 2010 (Kucharič et al. 2008, 2010) as pre-feasibility
studies.

264
SK4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
The main institution involved in CO2 storage in Slovakia is State Geological Institute of Dionýz
Štúr.

Other institutions involved in CO2 storage are the Slovak University of Technology - Faculty of
Material Science and Technology in Trnava, NAFTA a.s. and the Earth Science Institute of the
Slovak Academy of Sciences.

SK4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

SK4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
The State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr has been involved in the international research
project “Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe (ENOS)”.

There are no other institutions in Slovakia currently involved in projects related to CCS.

SK5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

SK5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
CCS is not well known in general public, so there is not any reliable information about public
acceptance of CO2 storage in Slovakia.

SK5.2 National advocates for CCS

There are no national clubs/lobby groups for CCS in Slovakia.

SK5.3 Public engagement

None.

265
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in SLOVENIA (SI; as of 30th June 2021)

SI1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
No changes/progress in Slovenia’s national storage assessment have been observed since
2013 (see summary below). There is no national storage atlas available. Also, there has been
no application for a CO2 storage exploration permit. Storage capacity (considering also the
economic aspects) for CO2 in Slovenia is largely hampered by its geographic position at the
junction of the three major geological/tectonic units. Furthermore, the identified potential
storage structures are a) small, which directly affects the economics of storage operations,
and b) dissected by faults and therefore exposed to higher risks and a need of intensive
monitoring, which again increases the cost of operations.

Slovenia’s storage options were first estimated in 2006 in the frame of the CASTOR project.
Storage capacities were assessed more precisely within EU GeoCapacity project (2006–
2008). The national storage potential was evaluated in the frame of the national project 2009–
2011: Seven major (i.e. emitting more than 100,000 t CO2/year) stationary emitters were
identified: three of them were power plants and the others come from manufacturing sector
(cement, paper & pulp, metal). The largest point source emitted approx. 4.8 Mt CO2 per year
(in 2008). Total annual CO2 emissions from point sources were in the order of 7 Mt. The
existing pipeline infrastructure in Slovenia is relatively favourable. No economic factors,
potential conflict of use, public acceptance or safety conditions were considered and/ or
assessed by now.

The country’s geological features are rather complex, particularly from a structural and
tectonic point of view. The NW, central and S parts of Slovenia belong to the Internal Dinarides
(Southern Alps) and External Dinarides; and the NE is a part of the Eastern Alps and the
Pannonian Basin. The Sava folds are considered a sub-unit of the Internal Dinarides. The
Periadriatic lineament divides the Southern Alps from the Eastern Alps. The territory of
Slovenia is made up of magmatic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks ranging in age from
Precambrian to Cenozoic. Spatial distribution of rock types shows that about 49% of the
Slovenian territory is covered by clastic rocks, about 39% are carbonates, about 4% belong to
the mixture of the two and only about 7% are igneous, pyroclastic and metamorphic rocks. In
geological history, several sedimentary basins were formed within each tectonic unit, varying
in size and depth. The most prosperous basins for geological storage of CO2 were found the
Ljubljana Basin, the Celje Basin, the Slovenian part of the Pannonian Basin and the SW Flysch
Basin. Sedimentary rocks are abundant and of appropriate depth, however the geological

266
structure is complex. Any more precise evaluation of the storage potential would therefore
require extensive further characterisation.

Seismological activity of the Mediterranean and its vicinity is governed by contact of the
African and Eurasian tectonic plates. It is believed that W and S Slovenia form the northern
part of the Adriatic plate, which lies between the two major plates. The Adriatic plate tends to
rotate in counter clockwise direction, thus causing folding and thrusting on its northern and
eastern rim. In contrast, its southwestern edge is extended, moving away from the Eurasian
plate. Thus, folded and overthrusted structures are characteristic of the entire Slovenia. The
thrust movement did not exceed 40 km. They are dissected by long regional faults, some of
them stretching through entire country. The most important faults occurred in Upper Pliocene
and Lower Pleistocene. Along the long regional faults, a horizontal shift of several kilometres
took place, as well as a vertical shift. In between horst structures, large basins were formed.
Three major seismogenic zones can be observed the NW part in the central part and in the SE
part of Slovenia. According to Eurocode 8, seismic hazard is described by the design ground
acceleration, which lies between 0.10g - 0.25g for rock or firm soil for the return period of 475
years.

Slovenia is relatively rich in thermal and mineral water resources. Some pumping wells for
mineral water in SE Slovenia do contain substantial amounts of natural CO2 dissolved. There
are evidences of CO2 seepage on the surface.

Because of the relative abundance of sedimentary rocks in Slovenia, its potential for
underground storage of CO2 in aquifers would expectedly be significant. However, the recent
studies do not show the same outcomes. This is predominately a consequence of very limited
geological data from the depth interval 800-2500 m that is currently available and of complex
geological structure. As a result, conservative estimation of storage capacities assessed
within different studies seems to be more appropriate for Slovenia.

In EU GeoCapacity, Slovenian effective storage capacity in aquifers was estimated to be

92 Mt. Only few reliable calculating parameters were available for calculations for particular
aquifer. The individual structures are relatively small and scattered. In the national project, the
potentiality of Slovenian territory was indeed studied for all most prosperous regions and
structures. However, the storage capacity was evaluated only on theoretical level for three
individual locations (Pečarovci, Dankovci and Besnica structure). Their total theoretical
storage capacity was apx.63 Mt. Both studies concluded that further investigations would be
required in order to confirm and to improve the storage capacity of individual fields.

The most reliable data existed for the assessment of storage capacities in hydrocarbon fields.
The two most prosperous locations were identified in NE Slovenia: oil and gas fields Dolina
and Petišovci. Their total capacity tended to be between 1.8-5.3 Mt. Some additional
formations would be a challenge for further CGS studies, apparently.

267
Despite the fact that Slovenia is relatively well developed coal province with long mining
tradition, the prospers for CO2 storage in unmineable layers and /or ECBM are limited due to
several reasons: i) the depth of coal layer in none of the known deposits is optimal for
geological storage of CO2 in liquid state; ii) the age of coal seams ranges from Triassic to
Pliocene; iii) the low coal quality (the moisture content as well as ash and sulfur content are
high). Different studies gave capacities ranging 0-100 Mt. The more conservative figures are
more likely to be realistic, because low permeability and swelling effects (clearly identified for
the Velenje lignite within MOVECBM project) were not taken into consideration, when
calculations were made. Some attention and further investigation may go to the coal layers in
the Mura formation in NE Slovenia.

The conclusions from EU GeoCapacity study showed that effective storage capacity of 94 Mt
CO2 could basically accommodate all emissions from stationary emitters in the country for
about 13 years. However, the individual structures are relatively small and are therefore less
appropriate for energy sector. Their suitability for emitters in the range of (few) 100,000 t/year
would need to be examined.

SI2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
SI2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SI2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SI2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SI2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

268
SI2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development
None.

SI3. National policies, legislation and regulations

SI3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Slovenia’s vision aims at strengthening capacities for climate change adaptation,
management of risks, while the ultimate objective is to reduce Slovenia’s exposure, sensitivity
and vulnerability to climate change impacts and to increase climate resilience and adaptive
capacities of the society. In February 2020 a National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) 2030
was adopted by the Government of Slovenia.

The energy policy goal (as defined in the Energy Concept of Slovenia) in its transition to a
climate neutral society by 2030 is to ensure a reliable, safe and competitive energy supply in
a sustainable manner to citizens and the economy. To achieve this, five key objectives are
emphasised: decarbonisation – mitigation of climate changes mitigation and adaptation
measures; decarbonisation – renewable energy sources (RES); energy efficiency; energy
security and internal energy market; research, innovations and competitiveness. Reduction of
the use of energy and other natural resources in all sectors is anticipated. According to NECP
scenario, Slovenia’s total GHG emissions shall be reduced from 17.4 Mt CO2 (eq) in 2017 to
13.1 Mt CO2 eq in 2030. Considering the principles of the just energy transition, Slovenia intends
to gradually reduce the use of coal, the target for 2030 being 30% (total primary energy supply
in 2018 for Slovenia: oil 34%, nuclear 22%, coal 16%, biofuels & waste 11%, natural gas 10%,
hydro 6%, wind & solar 1%). In addition, the NECP is in favour of a pilot project for the
production of synthetic methane and hydrogen. 27% share of RES in the final energy
consumption by 2030 is anticipated. Investments in the improved resilience of the electricity
distribution network are considered, including developments in energy storage technologies
and infrastructure (3% GDP, from public and private sources). A high level connectivity of
electricity infrastructure with its neighbouring states and in the wider region is also a priority.
Minimum 35% increase in energy efficiency is expected.

In the NECP 2030, CCS is not considered as an option for decarbonisation for Slovenia. The
principal arguments are the low price of CO2 coupons (acceptable range 40-60 EUR/t CO2
would not be reached before 2040 according to IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2017 and
prioritising other options, such as RES, nuclear and natural gas in the energy mixture of
Slovenia.

269
SI3.2 National legislation and regulations
Slovenia has transposed the EU CCS Directive in February 2012 with the novel of Energy Law
(EZ-E). The Slovenian standpoint is that “Slovenia does not foresee and does not plan CO2
storage capacities on its territory". However, it recognises that "a need for CO2 pipeline may
arise which would a) enable connecting Slovenian manufacturing plants with storage
capacities abroad and/or b) enable connecting CO2 pipeline of two neighbouring countries".
The EZ-E explicitly states the provisions and conditions to enable transport of CO2 on
Slovenian territory. The Energy Agency of the Republic of Slovenia is appointed as the national
competent authority. In order to implement the Directive, a series of legal acts was adopted.
According to currently valid legislation in Slovenia, injection and geological storage of CO2
(onshore and offshore) is explicitly and unconditionally forbidden (Mining Act ZRud-1, Art.6 as
of July 2010; Environment Protection Act ZVO-1F, Art.166.a as of November 2013).

SI4. Research
SI4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
No national funding targeted to CCS since 2013.

SI4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Research institutions involved in CO2 geological storage issues come from public and private
sector:

- Geoinženiring d.o.o.
- Geological Survey of Slovenia
- Nafta Geoterm d.o.o.
- HGEM d.o.o.
- University of Ljubljana – Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering

SI4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

270
SI4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
The ENOS project was the only recent research project related to CCS in which a Slovenian
partner was involved.

SI5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

SI5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Overall knowledge/awareness on CCS technology in the general public is low. However, in the
past few years, an increased interest for the CCS technology in media has been observed. This
includes interviews, complex articles on CCS, short presentations of CCS as a GHG reduction
measure etc. in various media (printed, electronic, radio). The journalists received substantial
support from national researchers (from Geoinženiring and the Geological Survey of Slovenia)
by providing information on the role of CCS, answers to the questions, graphic material,
experts views, overview of the state of the art of CCS in Europe and globally etc.

In the curriculum of the course on Environmental Geology for geology students (3rd year) at
the Faculty of Natural Sciences (University of Ljubljana) a 90 minutes slot is reserved for
geological storage of CO2. Geoinženiring has been invited to present this topic to the students
each year since 2011.

Dedicated presentations on CCS and in particular on the geological storage of CO2 have been
organised for general and professional publics. The organisers (natural sciences societies,
academy societies, NGOs) invited experts from Geological Survey of Slovenia to present the
technology and the current status.

Slovenia is observing the progress in the field of CCS in Europe and worldwide. Particularly
the industrial entities are interested in the outcomes and best practices gained through
existing (and future) demo/pilot projects.

SI5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

SI5.3 Public engagement

None. Partly covered in SI5.1.

271
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in SPAIN (ES; as of 30th June 2021)

ES1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The estimated CO2 storage capacity in Spain in deep saline aquifer formations is between 7
and 22 Gt CO2 (IGME 2010). Most of this estimated capacity is located onshore (maximum
21 Gt (21,000 Mt) CO2) although there are some interesting areas offshore along the
Cantabrian, Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. This estimate includes transboundary areas
of the Gulf of Cádiz and the Alborán Sea, with a total of ca. 1 Gt (1,000 Mt) CO2 estimated
capacity offshore (Martínez et al. 2013a).

Storage potential in onshore and offshore oil hydrocarbon reservoirs appears limited. Spain
suffers an almost complete lack of native hydrocarbon resources. Oil and gas reservoirs
onshore are small but high porosity and permeability. Oil and gas reservoirs in the
Mediterranean and the Gulf of Cádiz may offer potential for storage. Storage capacity in these
fields has been estimated at 150 Mt (Gulf of Cadiz is not included). The storage potential of
Spanish coal basins was studied in the EU GeoCapacity (2006–2008) project, which obtained
an estimated capacity of 145 Mt CO2, mainly concentrated in the north-western basins.

In 2010, the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) initiated the ALGECO2 Plan to identify suitable
onshore structures, including seal and reservoir, for CO2 injection and storage based on
existing geological and seismic information. After completion, a second project phase
included drilling some of the onshore structures, the static and dynamic modelling of the most
promising structures, and the publication of the first Spanish Atlas of CO2 geological storage
structures (Suárez Díaz & Arenillas González 2014). In some areas, detailed subsurface
information gathered in previous studies allowed the development of more detailed storage
estimates. It was possible in many cases to use geological models at a structure scale,
leading to more precise calculations and reducing uncertainties, and obtaining a better
calculation of the storage capacities.

The CO2 geological storage atlas, properly the “Atlas of subsoil structures susceptible to CO2
storage in Spain (Atlas de estructuras del subsuelo susceptibles de almacenamiento de CO2
en España)”, is available as a printed book (ISBN: 978-84-7840-935-8) or from the open access
of IGME.

The Atlas differentiates four regions, each formed by an onshore sedimentary basin
completed with a mountain range (Suárez Díaz & Arenillas González):

272
1) Duero Basin and Cantabrian Range: Located along the Spanish course of the Duero River.
The most interesting formations are found in the Triassic and Cretaceous, with very
porous sandstones and thick carbonated rocks. The potential in the basin is
complemented by structures contained in the Cantabrian Mountain Range, mostly in the
Eastern areas. The potential combined storage capacity is between 5.7 and 8 Gt CO2, and
the main studies for pilot and demonstration projects in Spain are taking place in some of
the more favourable formations of the Duero Basin and Cantabrian Range.
2) Ebro Basin and Pyrenees: This region covers the North East part of Spain and has a wide
variety of potential storage formations, from Lower Triassic to Miocene, both in
sandstones and carbonate rocks. The Ebro basin potential was studied together with the
Spanish Pyrenees, although most of the total storage potential of 3.6 to 5.2 Gt is located
in the Southern part of the basin.
3) Guadalquivir Basin and Baetic Range: This is a thin sedimentary basin located in the South
of Spain, following the Northern border of the Baetic Mountains, which are also included
in this study. The most interesting formations for CO2 storage are Lower Triassic
sandstones and Miocene sandstones. The small hydrocarbon deposits in the basin lead
to significant (compared to other locations in Spain) subsurface exploration including
geophysical campaigns and borehole drilling. This basin extends under the sea in the Gulf
of Cádiz, and to the Portuguese Algarve basin.
4) Madrid-Tajo and Almazán Basins and Iberian Range: Located in a wide plane to the South
of Madrid, this region is divided in two parts: the Madrid Basin in the West and the
Intermediate Depression in the East. The structure of the Eastern part is better known
because of oil exploration in the last century. The “Buntsandstein” is the most promising
formation in the East as is the Cretaceous “Utrillas sandstone” in the West. The Utrillas
formation is not considered for storage in the Intermediate Depression because of low
salinity. In this study, this basin has been combined with the Iberian Mountain Range,
where Mesozoic formations have a large potential.
Offshore studies were developed in the COMET Project. The COMET Project (2010–2013)
was funded by the European Commission for the study of an integrated CO2 transport and
storage network in Spain, Portugal and Morocco, being the first systematic work evaluating
offshore capacities for geological storage of CO2 in Spain. Ten locations were included in this
study, four in the Cantabrian Sea, two in the Atlantic Ocean and four in the Mediterranean Sea.
Locations of Galicia and Gulf of Cádiz in the Atlantic are shared with Portugal and the Alborán
Sea location in the Mediterranean is shared with Morocco and could lead to a more extensive
cooperation in the future. Preliminary studies of capacity in these offshore areas have
estimated about 1 Gt CO2 although total offshore capacity could be much higher if a complete
screening is developed.

To date, there are 6 CO2 storage exploration licences active (3 from 2012 and 3 from 2013)
and 15 submitted and waiting for a work proposal from a few years ago (it looks like coal
power station owners asked for exploration permits but they lost interest due to the close of
the facilities). During this period, two exploration permits have been withdrawn due to
relinquishment by the owners.

273
An experimental pilot with a storage volume under 100 kt was set up under the Mining Law at
the Hontomín Technology Development Plant (Burgos province). A storage permit was
granted (de Dios & Martínez 2019), first time in Spain, but finally the injection has not been
done due to administrative and political problems.

ES2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
ES2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
- La Pereda (2008–2012): The project goal was to develop CO2 capture technology by
using limestone as a sorbent. In Mieres (Asturias), a 1.8 MWth CO2 capture
demonstration plant was built for post-combustion capture of gases using
carbonation-calcination technology (1.8 MW). The plant consisted of two
interconnected circulating fluidised-bed reactors. In the calcination reactor, the
limestone is transformed into calcium oxide and highly concentrated CO2. The calcium
oxide is sent to the carbonation reactor where it reacts with flue gases by capturing
CO2 to form limestone again and prevent discharge into the atmosphere. The project
was subsidised under the Seventh European Framework Programme with a budget of
more than EUR 6.8 million.
- Planta GICC (Gasificación integrada con ciclo combinado; ElCOGAS): In 2010, the
installation of a 14 MWth pilot plant at the GICC plant in Puertollano was completed. It
was the world's first integrated gasification and combined-cycle plant to demonstrate
that pre-combustion technology for CO2 capture is viable in conjunction with hydrogen
and electric power production, bringing GICC technology to the forefront of clean coal
technologies. This project was subsidised by Spanish national funds as part of the
Spanish initiative "Advanced technologies of conversion, capture and storage of CO2".
- CENIT-CO2 (2006–2009): The main objective of the CENIT-CO2 project was the
research, development, and validation of integrated solutions to accelerate the
development of advanced technologies for the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. The project included three pilots:
(1) the construction of an experimental plant of 500 kWth for post-combustion CO2
capture by chemical absorption by amines integrated into the Thermal Power Plant of
Compostilla (Leon), treating 800 m3/h of flue gases and with a capture capacity of 3-
5 t CO2 per day with a capture efficiency of 90%;
(2) construction of an experimental CO2 capture plant on biomass combustion using
the carbonation-calcination technology, a 300 kWth plant connected to the Thermal
Power Plant of La Robla;

274
 (3) construction of an experimental CO2 capture plant using the real coal combustion
gases for feeding microalgae.
The project was funded by EUR 9.5 million from the Spanish strategic funding (CDTI)
and an additional EUR 10.5 million from private companies.
- Carbonera Cement plant: LafargeHolcim will start building a capture plan at the end
of 2022 in its cement plant of Almeria using the Carbon Clean Ind. (UK) technology. It
will start capturing 10% of emissions ramping up to 100%. The final goal is to
implement capture plants along its four cement plans in the country.

ES2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
The Compostilla project (2009–2012), a full-chain project, included an experimental transport
installation located in Ponferrada (operator: ENDESA together with the City of the Energy
Foundation, CIUDEN). This small-scale CO2 transport demonstration was a 3000 m long, 5 cm
diameter pipeline working in a loop, where CO2 streams with different compositions were
tested. Operational pressure ranges: 80-110 bar; operational temperature ranges: 10-31°C.
This installation is still available although plans for future use, if any, are unknown.

ES2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
The Hontomín site (Burgos) hosts the Technological Development Plant (TDP) for CO2
geological storage operated by “Fundación Ciudad de la Energía” (CIUDEN), a research
organisation connected to the Spanish Ministry of Ecological Transition. The plant has been
recognised by the European Parliament as a key test facility. The principal reservoir/seal pair
is formed by Lower Jurassic carbonate rocks (limestones and dolostones) sealed by marls
and black shales. The rocks at around 1,500 m depth take the form of a structural dome, where
the main seal is the Marly Lias and Pozazal Formations and the reservoir is the Sopeña
Formation. The reservoir has a high level of fracturing and it is compartmentalised, but this
does not affect the seal integrity. As part of the TDP, two wells have been drilled: H-I (CO2
injection well) and H-A (observation well).

As the Hontomín site is an experimental pilot with a lower than 100 kt CO2 storage plan, it is
regulated under the Mining Law 22/ 1973. The exploration permit was granted for three years
and had two extensions of two years each (May 2010 to 2017). Subsequently, Hontomín was
granted a storage permit under the Law 22/1973, in which the Mining Authority and CIUDEN
agreed to use requirements established in the Law 40/2010 complementary to the existing
mining legal framework. The storage permit was granted for a period of 30 years (from July

275
2018), 10 years to inject a maximum amount of 100 kt of CO2 and 20 years for site monitoring.
At the time of writing, the situation of Hontomín pilot is unclear due to political and
administrative reasons.

ES2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
In 2009, the only full-chain project in Spain to date was initiated: Compostilla OXYCFB300.
The project was co-funded by the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) and the
Spanish Government through the City of the Energy Foundation (CIUDEN, Ciudad de la
Energía). “Compostilla OXYCFB300” was a carbon capture and storage demonstration project
led by the power sector company ENDESA, Foster Wheeler Inc. as an industrial partner, and
CIUDEN.

The main goal of the project was the design, construction, commissioning and operation of a
coal-fired power plant (300 MW) equipped with CCS technologies. The CO2 captured would be
injected in a deep saline aquifer named Duero site. The second phase of OXYCFB300 project,
to build the power plant, was not performed by ENDESA, but the EEPR action was completed
in October 2013 when the above-described three pilots for CO2 capture and transport in
Cubillos (León), and storage in Hontomín (Burgos) were operational in Spain.

ES2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

Under the EU-funded project STRATEGY CCUS (H2020, 2019–2021) a cluster development is
being analysed for potential future development in the industrial area of Tarragona (north-
east) and the surrounding area within a 150 km distance, where a high geological storage
potential was identified both onshore and offshore as well as transport pipelines and
international ports.

ES3. National policies, legislation and regulations

ES3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The Spanish Strategy Frame for Energy and Climate is based on the Law of Climate Change
and Energy Transition (Ley 7/2021, de 20 de mayo, de cambio climático y transición
energética), the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan 2021–2030 (approved in March
2021), the Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy 2050 (defined at the end of 2020) and the Fair
Energy Transition Strategy (2021). The Strategy envisages a reduction in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in 2030 of 21% compared to 1990, a 42% share of energy end-use from
renewables (74% in electricity generation), and a 39.6% improvement in energy efficiency and
net zero emissions at 2050. These targets, which go well beyond those agreed previously for
Spain with the EC, are feasible, and widely supported by many stakeholders.

276
The Climate Change and Energy Transition Law is a normative framework focussing on
renewables development up to 100% of electricity system by 2050, promoting hydrogen as a
green energy source and new emission-free vehicles, banning by 2050 the use of coal for
electricity generation, and the oil and gas exploration and production. Nothing is said about
how to deal with CO2 emissions up to 2050 from power generation or industry.

The National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC) 2021–2030, defines the targets for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy penetration and energy efficiency.

The Long-term Decarbonisation Strategy 2050 will allow Spain to reduce its greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by 90% compared to 1990 by 2050. This involves reducing CO2 emissions
from the 334 Mt CO2 eq emitted in 2018 to a maximum of 29 Mt CO2 eq emitted in 2050. The
remaining 10% of emissions will be absorbed by carbon sinks, which will be able to capture
some 37 Mt CO2 eq by mid-century, which means achieving climate neutrality.

The Fair Energy Transition Strategy includes the necessary tools to optimise transition
employment opportunities through vocational training frameworks, active employment
policies, support, and accompanying measures.

ES3.2 National legislation and regulations

CO2 storage is regulated by Law 40/2010, 29th December 2010, on the geological storage of
carbon dioxide, which resulted from a direct transposition of the EU Directive 2009/31/EC.
Unfortunately, the development of specific regulations to tackle the bases and specificities of
each project case has not been carried out to date. This law, as it is the European Directive, is
not applicable for research projects where the planned amount of CO2 injected is less than
100 kt. For such cases, the Law 40/2010 sets that a specific regulation will be developed to
address the specificities of these projects, and as long as this regulation does not enter into
force, CO2 Storage for research purposes will be regulated by Mining Law 22/1973 and the
General Regulation for Mining Regime (Royal Decree 25th August 1978). In this case, the
Mining Authority is responsible for granting the exploration and storage permits.

277
ES4. Research
ES4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
In Spain, national funding of CO2 storage research activities has been very variable over the
last years. The greatest proportion of national funds has come from the Ministry of Industry,
Trade and Tourism and the Ministry of Science and Innovation. The government investment
from 2007 to 2013 is here estimated at EUR 10 million. The investment since 2013,
considering approved projects and initiatives, has increased considerably.

At date, the CDTI (Centre of the Development of Industrial Technology, included in the Ministry
of Industry, Trade and Tourism), is the main entity responsible for innovation funding and
support of national and international I&D projects using its own budget and co-funding from
European grants (ERA-NET and ERDF funds).

Regarding private companies’ investment during 2008–2013, the main actor in Spain was
Endesa, the power company with the highest emission rates in the country. Other power
companies like Gas Natural Fenosa (Naturgy today) and Iberdrola have also done some work
but with much lower investment. At date, considering an important new interest in CCUS
technologies, a few companies are initiating new projects such as ENAGAS and REPSOL.

ES4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Major research institutions:

- Geological Survey of Spain (IGME): The main national centre for research in the Earth
Sciences. IGME has developed an intensive work programme for site selection and
characterisation at different scales, participating many European- and nationally-funded
projects (EU GeoCapacity, CO2StoP, COMET, ENOS, STRATEGY CCUS, pilotSTRATEGY)
and following national initiatives such as CENIT CO2, ALGECO2, INNSONDA and SENSE.
- CIEMAT: The main research centre of Spain in the field of environment and energy. Most
of their activity is developed around nuclear and renewable energies. A research line is
being developed on CO2 storage using natural analogues to constrain impacts and guide
risk assessment relating to CO2 storage. In this, the participation of CIEMAT-CISOT in the
social analysis and public acceptance of CCS technologies is truly relevant.
- Scientific Research Superior Council (CSIC): The main institution in Spain in all fields of
basic research. Some of the institutes integrated in the Council have specific works on
research related to the geological storage of CO2, for example in geophysics. It is
especially worth mentioning CSIS-INCAR and its works related to CO2 capture from power
station and CO2 capture and reduction on the cement industry.

278
Some main actors of the CCS development in Spain during last years are now out of the CCS
scenario. That is the case of CIUDEN, the main actor in CCS research in Spain in the past,
having a new strategy plan (2019) where CCS is not included. Thus, the future of the Hontomín
pilot is particularly uncertain.

Also counting as actors contributing to Spanish CCS research are several departments of
Spanish universities involved in different fields of research related to CO2 geological storage
(this list is not exhaustive): Schools of Mines in Oviedo and Madrid and several Faculties of
Geology are developing studies, for example, about safety of storage, modelling, or shallow
aquifer protection. The Groundwater Department of the School of Civil Engineers of La Coruña
has published some impact articles about CO2 behaviour under deep geological storage
conditions. The Polytechnic University of Catalonia is developing research on several
hydrogeological aspects and tests, based on close cooperation with CIUDEN in Hontomín.

ES4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

None.

ES4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
EU GeoCapacity – Assessing European capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide;
FP6 (2006 -2008): Led by GEUS, it was the first project with a Pan European perspective for
the identification of suitable sites for geological storage in Europe, evaluating saline aquifers,
coal basins and hydrocarbon fields. IGME and ENDESA participated to provide data from
Spain.

CO2StoP (2011–2014): IGME contributed to the first European database of the potential
geological storage sites for carbon dioxide, providing information from European and National
projects.

COMET – Integrated infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage in the west MEdiTerranean;
FP7 (2010–2013): Project aimed at identifying and assessing the most cost-effective
infrastructure of CO2 transport and geologic storage in Portugal, Spain and Morocco, while
considering the temporal and spatial aspects of the development of the energy sector and
other industrial activities, as well as the location, capacity and availability of potential CO2
storage in geological formations.

279
ENOS - Enabling Onshore CO2 Storage in Europe; H2020 (2016–2020): ENOS strove to
enhance the development of CO2 storage onshore, close to CO2 emission points. Several field
pilots in various geological settings were studied in detail and best practices that stakeholders
can rely on were produced. In this way, ENOS helps to demonstrate that CO2 storage is safe
and environmentally sound and increase the confidence of stakeholders and the public in CCS
as a viable mitigation option.

STRATEGY CCUS; H2020 (2019–2021): The objective of the STRATEGY CCUS project is to
develop strategic plans for CCUS development in Southern and Eastern Europe in the short
term (up to 3 years), medium term (3-10 years) and long term (more than 10 years) developing
local CCUS development plans, with local business models, within promising start-up regions,
and defining connection plans with transport corridors between local CCUS clusters, and with
the North Sea CCUS infrastructure, in order to improve performance and reduce costs, and
contribute to build a Europe-wide CCUS infrastructure.

SENSE – Assuring integrity of CO2 storage sites through ground surface monitoring; ERA-Net
ACT (2019–2022): The integrity of CO2 storage sites is dependent upon the intrinsic properties
of the geological formations involved as well as operating parameters such as injection
pressure, injection rate, temperature and injection strategy. Although in-situ characteristics of
geological formations can be assessed prior to injection through, inter alia, well logs, well tests
and laboratory experiments, their actual response may still differ from the predicted
behaviour. The SENSE project utilises new technologies and optimised data processing to
develop reliable and cost-efficient monitoring programmes based on ground movement
detection combined with geomechanical modelling and inversion techniques.

pilotSTRATEGY; H2020 (2021–2026): The PilotSTRATEGY project (Pilot studies in regions

with promising geological resources) is investigating geological CO2 storage sites in industrial
regions of Southern and Eastern Europe for the purpose of large-scale CCS development. This
detailed geological characterisation and proposed development plan will be carry out on three
selected storage sites located in Paris Basin (France), Ebro Basin (Spain) and Lusitania Basin
(Portugal) and in lower detail also in Silesia area (Poland) and Macedonia area (Greece).

ES5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

ES5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Several surveys were conducted after the Spanish Law on Carbon Dioxide Geological Storage
was issued 30th December 2010. At that time (2012–2013), it was concluded that public
awareness was not high in Spain. The several surveys conducted by CIUDEN and CIEMAT
indicated that more than 75% of the population were not aware of CCS as a climate change
mitigation option. However, local public awareness campaigns had been carried out in the

280
areas where pilot and demonstration projects were planned; in these areas, the public opinion
of the CCS technology was mostly favourable (Lupion et al. 2013).

More recently, CIEMAT-CISOT (2017) report on a public engagement in CCS after as study
ordered by PTECO2, the Spanish technological platform for CO2.The study sample was
constituted by 1000 persons from all around Spain plus another 350 +375 in two specific
areas (Asturias, and Castilla y Leon) where CCS projects were expected to have higher
changes to be developed due to the coal dependency. The study indicated that fewer than
15% of the total had previous knowledge of CCS, but in the Castilla-Leon and Asturias samples
the proportion was higher: 18% and 30%, respectively.

In 2020, a similar study was carried out by CIEMAT-CISOT under the umbrella of the European
project STRATEGY CCUS. The study was based on 14 interviewees selected from different
sectors (administration, industry, NGO, labour works, …) (Oltra et al. 2020). Some of them were
relatively optimistic about the future development of CCUS technologies in Spain based on
the existence of pilot projects proving that the technology is almost ready. With the proper
incentives (supportive regulation and taxation, etc.), the technology could play a significant
role in reducing CO2 from the process industry in Spain. Interviewees are usually more
optimistic about the development, in the medium term, of small-scale projects to use of CO2,
relative to big capture and storage projects, perceived as more complex and dependent on an
active political support.

ES5.2 National advocates for CCS

PTECO2 – Plataforma Tecnológica Española del CO2: The Spanish CO2 Technology Platform
Association is an initiative developed by Spain’s private sector, research centres and
universities. It is partly funded by the Ministry of Finance and Competitiveness (MINECO) and
contains representatives of that ministry and of the Ministries of Industry, Energy and Tourism
(MINETUR) and Agriculture, Food and the Environment (MAGRAMA). PTECO2’s general brief
is to promote the development and deployment of CCUS technologies with the aim that Spain
should meet its emission reduction commitments, build a competitive CO2 sector, and reduce
the environmental, social and economic impacts of climate change.

PTECO2’s chief goal is to create a favourable environment for investment in R&D and
innovation, foster the creation of an innovative business fabric and increase technological
capacity in processes for efficiency improvement and CCUS, and to support the rolling out of
these technologies in industry.

281
ES5.3 Public engagement
In 2017, a study on public engagement in CCS was conducted by CIEMAT-CISOT ordered by
PTECO2. The study sample, as it was mentioned before, was completed by 1000 persons from
all around Spain plus 350 from Asturias and 375 from Castilla y Leon. The main conclusions
were, considering the previous lower public awareness of CCS, that:

- After a CCS technology presentation, most of the respondents (38%) were tech-
friendly, 34% neutral and 28% against CCS technology.
- The most common concerns regarding CCS were related to the potential impact on
the local environment, long-term uncertainty, the possibility of leaks and the potential
impact on the health of the local population.
The final recommendation made by the authors is to improve public understanding of CCS,
promoting trust in the organisations and entities responsible for management, and
establishing mechanisms to incorporate and respond to the concerns and values of the local
communities where CCS projects would be implemented.

New studies have been conducted now under the Strategy CCUs project and the
pilotSTRATEGY project.

282
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in SWEDEN (SE; as of 30th June 2021)

SE1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Potential CO2 storage sites in Sweden have been identified and mapped in a number of smaller
studies and in a few large projects, for example the MUSTANG project in 2009–2013, the
Bastor 2 project in 2012–2014 (Elforsk 2014), and the Nordic CCS Competence Centre,
NORDICCS, in 2011–2015. To date, studies focusing on CO2 storage in Sweden have been
based primarily on data collected during oil- and gas exploration activities conducted between
1970 and 1990. In many cases, the quality and coverage of these old exploration data are
limited. Hence, in order to perform safer and more accurate storage assessments in Sweden
additional investigations and data are needed.

NORDICCS was performed under the Top-level Research Initiative CO2 Capture and Storage
programme (project number 11029) and Nordic Innovation (NORDICCS 2016). The project
included mapping of potential CO2 storage sites in the Nordic countries (Iceland, Norway,
Denmark, Sweden, and Finland). The mapped CO2 storage sites were published in the Nordic
CO2 Storage Atlas as an interactive map for all the Nordic countries (except from Finland
where no potential storage sites were identified). The Nordic CO2 Storage Atlas contains,
beside the interactive maps, descriptions of the geology of the storage sites, CO2 terminology
and metadata. The following descriptions and capacity assessments are results from
NORDICCS, but one should keep in mind that different studies/projects have somewhat
different assessments.

In Sweden eight storage units and one trap were mapped and assessed within the NORDICCS
project, all located in the southernmost part of Sweden, primarily offshore in the Baltic Sea
(Lothe et al. 2014). Three of the potential storage units (reservoirs) are located in the south-
eastern part of the Baltic Sea. These storage units consist of Cambrian sandstones which
have a combined total thickness of approximately 138 m and sand net/gross ratios varying
from 0.65 to 0.90. These sandstone units are interlayered with shales and siltstone. On top of
the storage units is a thick caprock sequence beginning with a layer of late Cambrian–early
Ordovician shale a few metres thick (which pinches out to the eastern side of the Swedish
sector of the Baltic Sea). This is followed by a 65-125 m thick Ordovician sequence which
consists of limestone with varying clay content. On top of the Ordovician sequence lies an
approximately 700 m thick Silurian sequence consisting of marlstone and clayey limestone
interbedded with layers of clay. The storage units in the south-eastern part of the Baltic Sea
have an estimated static storage capacity of ca 1.7 Gt, using a storage efficiency factor of 2%.

283
However, it should be noted, that all three reservoirs in this part of the Baltic Sea are
challenged by somewhat low porosities and permeabilities.

The remaining five storage units are located in south-west Scania and adjacent sea (i.e. south-
western part of the Baltic Sea). In the south-western part, which lies within the Danish Basin,
four of the five storage units represent one storage complex, delimitated by faults. The
storage units consist of different types of sandstone interlayered with claystone and siltstone,
all Mesozoic in age. The storage units have a combined thickness of approximately 385 m
with sand net/gross ratios varying from 0.51 to 0.80. On top of the storage units is an
approximately 1200 m thick bed of Mesozoic-Paleogene clayey limestone with local interbeds
of silt- and sandstone. The fifth storage unit is located in the Vomb Trough, to the northeast
of the Danish Basin. This storage unit is approximately 200 m thick and has a sand net/gross
value of 0.65. This storage unit is capped by an approximately 600 m thick heterogeneous
sequence of lime-, sand-, clay- and marlstone interbedded with coal seams and conglomerate.
Altogether, the storage units in the southwestern part of the Baltic Sea have an estimated
static storage capacity of ca 1.7 Gt, using a storage efficiency factor of 2%. In general, the
storage units in the southwestern part of the Baltic Sea have good porosities and
permeabilities.

The static storage capacity estimations above are based on the method described in the
EU GeoCapacity project (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al. 2009b). A storage efficiency factor of 2%
is used in all cases, based on the U.S. DOE standard for open saline formations (Goodman et
al. 2011). A method for screening and ranking of the identified storage sites was developed
in NORDICCS (Aagaard et al. 2014). The method assesses the physical parameters of the
storage formation as well as the available knowledge and level of technical maturity. In the
two most prospective storage units, one in each part of the Baltic Sea, dynamic reservoir
simulations and modelling were performed (Mortensen et al. 2016). For this work the
commercial software ECLIPSE 100 (Schlumberger 2007) and the basin modelling SEMI (Sylta
2004) was used. As ECLIPSE 100 model the complete system within the aquifer, this method
was deemed most suitable for the Swedish aquifers due to limited numbers of traps.
Considering “safe storage” scenarios (i.e. avoiding scenarios with potential leakage through
mapped faults), the simulations gave a storage capacity of 250 Mt CO2 for each of the two
modelled storage units. The large gap between the static and dynamic assessments is partly
due to the limited data (i.e. incomplete 2D seismic surveys, few offshore wells) which leads
to uncertainties in assumptions and input parameters. The results also demonstrate the large
span between capacity estimates using different methods.

There is no national CO2 storage atlas in Sweden beside from the Swedish part in the Nordic
CO2 Storage Atlas produced in the NORDICCS project.

In Sweden there has never been any application for a CO2 storage exploration licence, nor any
storage permit.

284
There are several limiting factors for CO2 storage in Sweden. Beside the need for modern
subsurface data, these limitations are mostly due to local and regional legislation. For
example, former oil and gas activities in the southeast Baltic Sea indicate local accumulations
of oil and gas in the Cambrian sandstone which represents one of the most promising CO2
storage units in Sweden. In the case of CO2 injection into this reservoir, it is likely that
extraction of formation fluid (water and possibly oil/gas) would be required as part of pressure
maintenance. The challenge is that Swedish legislation prohibits all extraction of oil and gas
offshore. Hence, there is currently no legislation regulating how eventual oil or gas findings
should be handled. Furthermore, local legislation and required permits to start up a CCS
project in Sweden would result in very long lead time before it could get started. In a more
regional perspective, CO2 storage in Sweden and neighbouring countries is challenged by the
Helsinki Convention, the London Protocol, and the EU CCS Directive.

SE2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
SE2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Preem CCS – capture and storage of CO2: Preem’s project aims to conduct a feasibility study
and demonstration ahead of a full-scale realisation of carbon capture at Preemraff in Lysekil
on the Swedish west coast. The project explores the possibilities of carbon capture from the
hydrogen production plant and is carried out together with Norwegian actors. The projects
adopts a holistic perspective by looking at the entire value chain as well as policy and
legislation. CO2 capture utilising Aker Solutions mobile test facility has been demonstrated at
Preemraff in Lysekil by capturing a slip stream of CO2 from its existing hydrogen production
plant. Based on the results from the process part of the project, a feasibility study is carried
out including cost estimates for a full-scale capture facility which includes pre-liquefaction
and intermediate storage of CO2. The Swedish Energy Agency has granted SEK 7.7 million and
the Norwegian based Gassnova NOK 9.5 million to support the project. (See also SE4.3)

Stockholm Exergi test facility for Bio-CCS: The CO2 capture test plant at Stockholm Exergi
was connected to the bio-cogeneration plant in Värtan, Stockholm, applying the Hot
Potassium Carbonate (HPC) process. The testing continued as planned until June 2020. In
the autumn of 2020, The Swedish Energy Agency granted Stockholm Exergi additional funds
to expand the plant. The goal is that the plant, together with a CCS integration study, will form
the basis for Stockholm Exergi to invest in a large-scale capture plant. The aim of the test
facility was to evaluate and adapt the bio-CCS technology to the biomass-co-generation plant
in Värtan. In the test facility, detailed test programmes were implemented to understand how
different parts of the process such as flue gases, pressures and temperatures affect

285
implementation of large-scale CCS. The facility’s response to stress tests were also
investigated. Simulations were conducted in parallel to the physical tests in the plant to
provide complimentary data. The Swedish Energy Agency has granted SEK 4.3 million to
support the project. (See also SE4.3)

SE2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None. Export and storage in Norwegian reservoirs through the Northern Lights project is the
primary scenario being considered by both Preem and Stockholm Exergi’s projects.

SE2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SE2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

SE2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

In the project “Carbon Infrastructure Capture (Cinfracap)” two refineries, two combined heat
and power plants (CHPs), a port owner and a gas transport company analyse possible options
for a shared CO2 capture and transport infrastructure in the area of Gothenburg and western
Sweden. A pilot study phase was completed in March 2021. Cinfracap received some funding
from the Swedish Energy Agency. A second project phase is currently being planned.

286
SE3. National policies, legislation, and regulations
SE3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Sweden has decided on a climate policy framework consisting of climate goals, a climate law,
and a climate policy council. The framework provides long-term conditions for business and
society to carry out the change needed to solve the climate challenge. The law stipulates that
each Government's climate policy should be based on the climate goals and describe how the
work should be conducted. The Government must present an annual climate report and every
four years produce a climate policy action plan. By 2045, Sweden is to have zero net emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere meaning that GHG emissions from activities
in Sweden should in 2045 be at least 85 percent lower than in 1990. The remaining 15 percent
can be achieved through supplementary measures such as increased carbon sequestration in
forest and land, CCS and emission reduction efforts outside of Sweden. The climate policy
framework can thus not be implemented without a policy for supplementary measures.

In 2019, a government inquiry (SOU2020:4) was conducted to propose a strategy and action
plan for how Sweden could use such supplementary methods to attain the goal of net zero
emissions by 2045. In this, BECCS is identified as a potential tool for negative emissions. The
inquiry proposes 1.8 Mt/year of BECCS in 2030 and between 3 and 10 Mt/year in 2045 (with
a large uncertainty as the contribution from other measures in 2045 is unclear). The inquiry
proposes a reversed auctioning system for providing incentives to mitigate biogenic
emissions (the state as buyer and emitters as potential sellers of negative emissions). The
inquiry also highlighted the need of a national CCS-centre which was assigned to the Swedish
Energy Agency by the Swedish government in the beginning of 2021. The Swedish Energy
Agency is also developing a suggestion on the above mentioned auctioning system.

SE3.2 National legislation and regulations

The Swedish transposition of the EU CCS Directive was completed in 2014, mainly by the
Swedish Environmental Act (1998:808) and the Swedish Continental Shelf Act (1966:314). The
specific rules regarding geological storage of CO2 were implemented in the regulation
(2014:21) of geological storage of CO2.

The regulation came into force on 15th July 2014 and the purpose of the regulation was to
guarantee an environmentally safe storage, by the permanent containment of CO2. Since then,
the regulation has been changed on 2nd August 2016, 1st January 2017, 1st September 2018
and 1st August 2019. According to the regulation, CCS projects involving geological storage
of more than 100 kt CO2 are only allowed offshore. The regulation is not applicable to smaller
CCS projects (e.g. research projects) involving geological storage of less than 100 kt CO2.
Such projects, which are also allowed onshore, will have to fulfil requirements according to
the Swedish Environmental Act.

287
The Swedish subsurface belongs to the Swedish state. But the Government can according to
the Continental Shelf Act give permits for exploration or exploitation of the Swedish
continental shelf.

The Swedish government is the competent authority for granting permits for geological
storage of CO2. The Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) is the regulatory authority regarding
supervision of the storage complex.

SE4. Research
SE4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
In recent years, the main focus of CCS research in Sweden has been on capture and
transportation, where several pilot and demonstration projects have begun to investigate CO2
capture. Presently, relatively little research focuses on geological storage in Sweden, as it is
generally assumed that CO2 will be transported and stored in Norway, at least initially. Listed
below are a range of different national funding organisations. Most of these do not have
specific programmes for funding CCS research, however, it is possible in some cases to
receive funding for CCS related research through their more general programmes.

The Swedish Energy Agency (Energimyndigheten) is the main body responsible for funding
in Sweden which specifically focuses on CCS. Over the last 10 years this organisation has
funded several projects addressing various aspects of CCS. Many of them have been funded
on a case-by-case basis and have not been part of a specific funding initiative. However, there
have been several specific funding programmes, from which projects focusing on CCS have
received funding. These funding programmes focus mainly on energy systems, sustainability,
and the transition to zero net CO2 emissions. A notable funding programme which has recently
begun is called Industriklivet. This began in 2018 and will continue until 2040. The objective
of this initiative is to fund research that will aid industry in the transition to zero-net-CO2
emissions in 2045. Funding is available for research, feasibility studies and demonstration
projects.

The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) is a government agency which funds

research in all scientific disciplines. It does not have a specific programme for funding CCS
based research, however, it has been an important national funding source for CCS research
in Sweden, where several projects have been funded (or part funded) from their general natural
sciences research project programme.

The Swedish institute (Svenska institutet) is a governmental agency which can provide funds
for smaller projects. It does not have a specific programme for CCS, but some small CCS
related projects have been funded.

288
Formas is a government research council for sustainable development. The funding
programmes from Formas address environmental issues and aim to provide results which will
aid Sweden in reaching its environmental objectives. CCS related projects would fall within
the scope of some of the funding programmes from Formas.

The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) supports projects over a broad range
of scientific disciplines (including engineering, medicine, and natural science) in areas
deemed to be of strategic importance for Sweden. CCS projects could fall within the scope of
some of the funding programmes from SSF.

Sweden’s innovation agency, Vinnova. Vinnova funds research and innovation projects that
can benefit the Swedish society and they do so through various offers, announced in the form
of various calls for proposals. CCS projects could fall within the scope of some of the funding
programmes (they have for example funded a project on business models for CCS).

Table SE: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage.
Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed X X (x) (x) X X

MUSTANG

NORDICCS

NORDICCS

NORDICCS

NORDICCS

NORDICCS

NORDICCS
examples

BASTOR

BASTOR
Project

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

289
SE4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage
There are several research institutes and institutions currently investigating CCS in Sweden.
Some examples are as follows:

• Luleå University of Technology

• Uppsala University
• Chalmers University of Technology
• Energiforsk (formally Elforsk)

SE4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

In recent years, the focus of CCS-related research in Sweden has been on capture, where
several demonstration and pilot CO2 capture projects have been established.

Pilot plant at Preem’s Lysekil refinery: Preem, Sweden’s largest fuel company, has recently
begun a project to demonstrate capture technology at its Lysekil refinery in Sweden. The
project began in 2019 and will continue until 2021. Chalmers University of Technology,
SINTEF, Aker solutions and Equinor are partners in the project. The project is funded by the
Swedish Energy Agency as part of their Industriklivet programme and GASSNOVA as part of
their CLIMIT demonstration programme. As part of the project the entire CCS chain will be
investigated, including capture, transport, and storage. Geological storage in Norway, rather
than Sweden, is assumed in this project (see also SE2.1).

Demonstration plant at Stockholm Exergi central heating plant, Värtan, Stockholm:

Stockholm Exergi began operations at a demonstration plant for the capture of CO2 at their
central heating plant in Värtan in autumn 2019 and will continue until summer 2020. The
central heating plant uses biofuel and hence, the project can be considered as Bio Energy
Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The project is part funded by the Swedish Energy
Agency. Geological storage in Norway, rather than Sweden, is assumed in this project (see
also SE2.1).

Presently, there are no projects focusing on transport or geological storage in Sweden.

The INSURANCE project (Utilisation of industrial residues for an efficient geological BECCS)
is conducted by the research groups Ore Geology and Biochemical Process Engineering at
Luleå University of Technology, in collaboration with the paper- and pulp company Billerud
Korsnäs. In the project that is funded with SEK 10 million by the Swedish Energy Agency
2020–2024, the aim is to develop the CO2 capturing technique and to investigate the potential
for geological storage of CO2 in the Swedish onshore bedrock. The development of the
capturing technique will involve the use of the industry’s own by-products/waste with the aim
of producing a more energy-efficient technique for capturing the CO2 from the industrial off-
gases. In the geological part of the project, volcanic bedrock around seven Swedish paper

290
mills will be investigated with the aim of finding chemically favourable rocks for CO2 storage.
A comparison between the older Swedish bedrock is made with the younger Icelandic bedrock
(ongoing Carbfix project) where CO2 is successfully injected into volcanic rocks.

SE4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
The Swedish geological survey is currently not involved in any active EU funded
regional/international CCS projects.

SE5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

SE5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
There are few studies polling the attitudes of the general public. Von Borgstede et al. (2013)
surveyed the general public with respect to their opinions on energy and climate related
issues. The survey asks if respondents have heard of CCS and if they think it is a technology
that should be used to tackle climate change. Von Borgstede et al. found that few people had
heard about CCS. Yet, repetitions of the survey in 2015 and 2020 show an increased
awareness in the technology with a slightly more-positive attitude towards using the CCS
technology. Johnsson et al. (2010) published a 2006 poll on stakeholders’ attitudes to CCS.
Johnsson et al. concluded that “there was a widespread belief that CCS as well as renewable
technologies such as solar power will achieve major market entry into the electricity sector
within the next 10-20 years”. This would mean 2016 to 2026 and it can be concluded that this
did not occur for CCS but did for renewables. However, in 2006 CCS was mainly associated
with coal power generation in Europe whereas today, CCS is generally (within industry and the
political sphere) seen as an important part of a mitigation portfolio for the Swedish industry
(although there are also some opponents to CCS). Media awareness regarding CCS has
increased in recent years.

SE5.2 National advocates for CCS

Most parts of the emission-intensive industry in Sweden are engaged in CCS. This includes
the pulp and paper industry which may act as CO2 sinks since emissions are biogenic. Fossil
Free Sweden, a governmentally supported initiative which gathers a large segment of Swedish
industry to present sector-specific roadmaps for the Swedish industry which comply with the
Swedish emission targets, have pointed to the need for CCS and BECCS in several of their
roadmaps. The same goes for some reports presented by the Royal Swedish Academy of
Engineering Sciences. The Forum for Reforms, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, FORES, a

291
liberal think tank, has also been generally positive towards CCS and BECCS. The public inquiry
(SOU2020:4) mentioned earlier proposed targets for negative emissions by BECCS as part of
a set of measures to reach a certain level of negative emissions by the years 2030 and 2045.
There are also research groups in Sweden that point to the need for CCS mainly highlighting
that 1) CCS is today the only feasible mitigation option for certain industries (cement and
waste-to-energy heat and power plants) and 2) the need for net carbon removal from the
atmosphere (BECCS) to remove residual emissions to reach net zero emissions and, on the
longer term, to reach net negative emissions.

SE5.3 Public engagement

Relatively little public engagement has been performed in Sweden with regard to CCS; see
SE5.1. There is a good awareness of the need for CCS/BECCS among Swedish politicians,
relevant Government offices, institutions, academia as well as within the industry. When it
comes to the general public, they are very concerned and engaged with regard to the issue of
climate change much because of the broad coverage this issue gets in the press. The more
technical aspects of solving the problem, like for instance the use of CCS/BECCS, appears to
be less understood and therefore, the public engagement for – or against – the use of
CCS/BECCS appears to be very low. This also applies to the press.

292
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in Switzerland (CH; as of 30th June 2021)

CH1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
In 2008, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) commissioned a short report
that highlighted, among other issues, the lack of a CO2 storage potential assessment in
Switzerland (Wallquist et al. 2009). Also in 2008, the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE)
commissioned a Swiss Molasse Basin basin-scale assessment of the potential for geological
storage of CO2 in Switzerland (Diamond et al. 2010). The Swiss Molasse Basin, the country
specific foreland basin north of the Alps extends from Lake Constance in the Northeast to
Lake Geneva in the Southwest of Switzerland. The basin scale assessment led to a theoretical
CO2 storage capacity based on the calculation of a pore volume for the basin or storage
formations being considered and then discounted to account for the sweep efficiency. In line
with established practices of CO2 storage assessments (IEA 2013), a simultaneous
consideration of nine geological attributes (including faulting and natural seismicity) allowed
the theoretical storage potential to be mapped at a resolution of a few km2. At least four
suitably capped reservoir formations of permeable sandstones and limestones (saline
aquifers) underlie large areas of the Swiss Central Plateau (and to lesser extent below the
western Jura Chain) within the technically favoured depth interval of 800-2,500 m. The
composite theoretical storage assessment arrived at a theoretical (unproven) storage
capacity of approximately 2,680 Mt CO2. The theoretical CO2 storage capacity estimate has
not yet been constrained in a further techno-economic way.

In parallel, the Domain of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology (ETH Domain) initiated
CARMA (Carbon Dioxide Management in Power Generation), a research and development
project which investigated the state of development of CCS in Switzerland (Sutter et al. 2013).

More recently, new petrophysical data, albeit sparse, have been used to re-assess a marine
sequence within the Swiss Molasse Basin considered to have a particularly high CO2 storage
potential. This Sequence, the Muschelkalk, is one of four geological formations considered
suitable for saline aquifer storage: The Muschelkalk comprises today a deep saline aquifer
with an associated low permeability cap rock sequence (Diamond et al. 2019). In Northeast
Switzerland, in the Olten-Schaffhouse-Zurich area, the storage capacity of the Muschelkalk is
estimated to be 52 Mt CO2. Other site-specific studies have indicated CO2 storage potential in
southwestern Switzerland, but this has not yet been quantified.

The data have not been assembled in a comprehensive national CO2 storage atlas for
Switzerland. Neither site-specific characterisation nor site deployment studies have been

293
undertaken to date, which hinders the development of effective, practical or matched storage-
capacity figures for Switzerland. Due to the low degree of exploration maturity the resulting
poor knowledge of the Swiss subsurface, more detailed investigations and pilot studies to
prove storage feasibility are required.

To date CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers is thought to be the best storage option in
Switzerland. Considering the kinematics and dynamics of the Swiss Molasse Basin it is
presently unclear to what extent CO2 storage in saline aquifers will be constrained by
buoyancy-limited storage or pressure-limited storage.

While Switzerland has no depleted oil/gas fields to speak of, it is worth remembering that
there are hydrocarbon accumulations. Some 75 million m3 of natural gas have been produced
from the Finsterwald gas field during the 1980s. There are no published estimates of the gas
initially in place (GIIP) and hence no estimates of CO2 storage capacity. A 2013 geothermal
exploration well has encountered a natural gas pocket at a depth in excess of 4,500 m
underneath the city of St. Gallen in Eastern Switzerland. Using simple volumetrics the amount
of natural gas accumulated in the reservoir is estimated to be very small, on the order of
500 million m3 of GIIP.

No applications for a CO2 storage concession or permit to undertake exploration and

development activities have been filed yet with cantonal authorities; the 26 cantons that
constitute the Swiss Confederation have the jurisdiction over their subsurface. The CO2-
emitting industries of Switzerland have not undertaken any work on CO2 storage in
Switzerland.

A parliamentary motion which authorises the Swiss federal government to, among other
aspects, develop and implement a CO2 storage exploration and development programme was
submitted to the Swiss parliament in autumn 2020. The aim will be to create the necessary
conditions for exploiting the subsurface, in particular for the acquisition of resources (heat,
energy, minerals), for storage purposes (heat, cold, CO2) or for the creation of new
infrastructure (transport). Adopted by the two chambers of parliament in June 2021, a plan to
process this motion is currently being prepared and will be submitted to the Swiss federal
government for validation in early 2022.

294
CH2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
CH2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
Technical CO2 capture for the purposes of meeting climate targets is novel for Switzerland.
There are a number of pilot projects, mostly early stage (technology readiness level 4,
laboratory pilot scale) in connection with 2nd and 3rd generation capture materials, and novel
processes around integrated hydrogen- and CO2-separation in connection with biomethane
production. Switzerland’s waste-to-energy, wastewater treatment, cement and chemicals
sector are at various planning stages, generally at low readiness or commercial readiness
levels, for piloting CO2 capture in their industrial processes.

Of note is the impact of Climeworks, a Swiss company that develops and manufactures direct
air capture units that have been piloted in a number of locations in Switzerland. Climeworks
direct air capture process is an integral part of the Carbfix process that has been
demonstrated in Iceland.

CH2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None. A prefeasibility study is in progress to identify the opportunities for developing a Swiss
CO2 collection network, possible routes and opportunities to integrate within a wider European
CO2 transport infrastructure to export CO2 to geological CO2-storage sites abroad.

Domestically, there are a few conceptual studies related to the topology of an integrated CO2-
pipeline network in Switzerland in connection with a hydrogen transport network, and in
connection with the Carbon Hub concept of Switzerland’s waste-to-energy sector.

CH2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
To date there is no project that pilots or demonstrates CO2 geological storage in a
comprehensive manner in Switzerland. There have been and currently are a number of
research and innovation studies that feature site selection criteria for finding and developing
CO2 storage sites (undertaken in the framework of the ELEGANCY project, see CH4.4 for
project list); petrophysical studies on typical storage and their associated cap rock formation
(undertaken in the framework of the SCCER-SoE programme of work); conceptual studies that
link geothermal energy utilisation and CO2 storage (a joint Swiss-Canadian R&D project

295
Aquistore) and a number of specific studies that address cap rock integrity and CO2 storage
risk management (undertaken mostly in the framework of ELEGANCY and SFOE sponsored
research).

Within the framework of the SFOE/ERANET ACT funded project ELEGANCY various aspects
of geological CO2-storage in saline aquifers have been studied including storage capacities,
viable rates of CO2 injection, magnitude and predictability of induced seismicity, cap-rock
integrity and longevity of trapping.
Some experimental work is also taking place at the Mont Terri rock laboratory in Switzerland.

CH2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
A few full-chain CCS projects are in early phases of preparation with a view towards
application for innovation funding.

CH2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

CH3. National policies, legislation and regulations

CH3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
In August 2019 the Federal Council (the government of Switzerland) decided to set a climate
neutrality target for Switzerland by 2050. This target is indicative only and has not been
endorsed or approved by Parliament and the Swiss people. Government’s intent was the
starting point for the long-term climate strategy announced on 27th January 2021 (FOEN 2021)
and submitted to the UN Climate Change Secretariat as required by the Paris Agreement. The
strategy builds on the measures and goals of the revised CO2-Act, which targets a greenhouse
gas emission reduction of 50% by 2030 relative to 1990. At least 75% of the 2030 target must
be achieved domestically and thus the revised CO2-Act will be a key step in achieving the net
zero target.

The target of the long-term climate strategy is a circa 90% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050 relative to the 1990 level. The remaining gap must be balanced with
negative emissions (permanent removal of greenhouse gases from the climate-relevant
carbon cycle). The Federal Council addressed the possible role of negative emission
technologies (NETs) in Switzerland’s long-term climate policy to some detail in autumn 2020
in its reply to the postulate Thorens Goumaz (18.4211) and outlined possible courses of action
(FOEN 2020). CO2 geological storage could have gained access to CO2 compensation

296
certificates, should the revised CO2-Act had passed the public referendum in June 2021.
Parliamentary proceedings on a new revision of the CO2-Act are currently ongoing. Support
mechanisms for the exploration for CO2 geological storage sites in Switzerland will be under
consideration during the processing of the parliamentary motion previously mentioned.

CH3.2 National legislation and regulations

Carbon capture is to some extent legislated and regulated in the framework of industrial
processes. There exists neither legislation nor regulation for CO2 transport via pipelines, only
for rail and road transport.

In Switzerland, the 26 Cantons comprising the Swiss Confederation have sole sovereignty over
the subsurface: they are in charge of defining the regulatory framework for geological CO2
storage. No canton has replicated the EU CCS Directive; there is no obligation for Switzerland
and its Cantons to transpose this EU Directive.

There is no ban on carbon capture, transport or storage. It is questionable whether a fully

integrated legal framework for CCS needs to be created in Switzerland.

CH4. Research
CH4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
In 2019, public funding for CCS research and innovation amounted to CHF 8.7 million (approx.
EUR 8 million). The principal funding agencies are the ETH domain, the Swiss National Science
Foundation, Innosuisse, the Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE, the Federal Office for the
Environment FOEN, the Cantons and the European Union. In particular, the Swiss Federal
Offices that deal with energy and climate have increased investment in research and
innovation as of 2020 and 2021. The statistics for 2020 will be published towards the end of
2021.

To date there does not exist an integrated research and innovation strategy and plan for CCS.
As CCS research and innovation is primarily connected with Switzerland’s energy systems (at
least 70% of relevant greenhouse gas emissions are energy related), coordination of CCS
research and innovation is to be coordinated by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE. The
Federal Commission for Energy Research has included CCS in its 2021–2024 energy research
strategy and implementation plan.

However, CCS efforts are in their infancy and no detailed CCS strategy and implementation
plans have been developed. As the impact of CCS is directed on meeting the nation’s climate
targets, the Federal Office for the Environment has been charged to develop a roadmap for

297
negative emission technologies, which will feature CCS as an ensemble of basic technologies
common to a number of negative emission technologies. Low TRL (up to level 4) research on
CO2 capture, transport and storage is mostly administered by the Swiss Federal Office of
Energy’s industrial-processes and geo-energy research programmes. Higher technology-
readiness-level activities, dominantly pilot and demonstration projects, are funded by the
SFOE pilot and demonstration programmes.

Table CH: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on
CO2 storage.

Environmental
Land planning

infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well
&

Addressed (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) - (x)

(2020-2021)
ELEGANCY

Aquistore
(2017 –
2020)

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

CH4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

CO2 storage research is undertaken by the University of Bern, University of Geneva, EPFL
(École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne) and ETHZ (Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich).

CH4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

A number of national and international consortia use the Mont Terri underground rock
laboratory operated by the Swiss Geological Survey, swisstopo. Participation in ECCSEL is
currently under discussion.

298
CH4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
ERA-NET ACT:

- ELEGANCY
- GaSTech –Demonstration of Gas Switching Technology for Accelerated Scale-up of
Pressurized Chemical Looping Applications
- PrISMa
- AC²OCem
- 3rd call ERANET ACT – submitted projects are being evaluated

Aquistore, a joint Swiss-Canadian research project on CO2-plume geothermal energy

utilisation.

EU funded project (ongoing or concluded in 2021):

- DMX – Demonstration in Dunkirk

- CLEANKER – CLEAN clinKER production by Calcium looping process
- CarbFix2 - Upscaling and optimizing subsurface, in situ carbon mineralization as an
economically viable industrial option (HE)
- Leilac: Low Emissions Intensity Lime and Cement (H2020)
- MEMBER: Advanced MEMBranes and membrane assisted procEsses for pre- and
post- combustion CO2 captuRe (H2020)
- GENESIS: High performance MOF and IPOSS enhanced membrane systems as next
generation CO2 capture technologies (H2020)
- AMADEUS: Advancing CO2 Capture Materials by Atomic Scale Design: the Quest for
Understanding (ERC consolidator grant)
- MaGic - The Materials Genome in Action (ERC Advanced Grant)

CH5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

CH5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Even though no scientific public awareness survey has been performed in Switzerland, it is
fair to say that general public knowledge about the CCS technology is very limited because of
the lack of public discussion as well as visible activity (e.g. Wallquist et al. 2009).

299
CH5.2 National advocates for CCS
There are no national clubs or lobby groups supporting CCS in Switzerland. CCS is generating
interest among emission-intensive industries, such as cement and waste-to-energy, but the
only sector that is taking an advocacy role for CCS is the waste-to-energy/waste-to-value
sector.

CH5.3 Public engagement

None.

300
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in TURKEY (TR; as of 30th June 2021)

TR1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
Assessment of possible geologic sites for CO2 storage in Turkey was conducted in the scope
of a project run by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and funded by the Turkish
Scientific and Technology Council (TUBITAK, KAMAG Project 106G110 (2009): Preparation of
the Inventory of CO2 Emissions from Thermal Power Plants and Industrial Facilities and
Determination of the Potential of CO2 Storage in Underground Geological Formations in
Turkey). The assessment was carried out by the Petroleum Research Center at the Middle
East Technical University (METU-PAL) and the Turkish Petroleum Corporation. Using the IPCC
methodology, CO2 emissions were calculated from major Turkish sources including from
thermal power plants with capacities greater than 500 MWe, cement factories, the steel
industry, sugar factories and refineries. Storage potential was assessed in oil and gas fields
and deep saline aquifers in Turkey, including the Dodan natural CO2 field and the Mersin Soda
Industry salt caverns. The suitability for storage of each was considered. Data from producing
oil and natural gas reservoirs were confidential, as a result, only the fields licensed to Turkish
Petroleum Corporation were studied (results are confidential).

Coupling sources and sinks resulted in a decision to make technical and economic
evaluations for CO2-EOR and storage operation in the Çaylarbaşı oil field in Adıyaman Region,
with the source being CO2 emissions from a cement factory about 130 km distant. The
transportation plan considered both pipeline and tanker alternatives. EOR modelling was
based on the assumption that CO2 would be available at the cement factory. The modelling
indicates that for a project life of 20 years, 8 years of CO2 injection for EOR would produce
2 million barrels of oil followed by a 12 year storage phase in which 220 million Sm3 CO2 can
be stored (Okandan et al. 2011).

Turkey’s underground energy storage data were collected as part of the two-year ESTMAP
project (2015–2016) under the B.2.7 call “Energy Storage Mapping and Planning”. For the
geographical database indicating existing, future and potential energy storage both
subsurface and above-ground in Europe, METU-PAL assessed two hydrocarbon reservoirs
currently developed in Turkey and two Turkish hydrocarbon reservoirs planned to be
developed for underground gas storage. Two salt caverns were also included, both planned
for underground gas storage. Direct operational capacities (gas working volumes) were
determined. Although additional potential may also be present, only publicly available data or
the potentials that have been assessed to a sufficient degree were reported in the project.

301
Identified underground gas storage sites may be considered as future potential CO2 storage
options.

The CO2 storage potential in the Adıyaman, Batman and Thrace Basin oil and gas fields in
Turkey was studied in the “Low Carbon Development Project” beginning in 2017. This work
was carried out by METU-PAL. The “Low Carbon Development Project” was continued by a
Consortium of the Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation, Human Dynamics,
Regional Environmental Center (REC) and Agriconsulting Europe S.A. (AESA). Using available
reservoir data, CO2 storage volumes values were calculated considering the amounts of free
CO2 gas and CO2 dissolved in water for each field (Low Carbon Development Project 2017).
The preliminary results show that after analysing 103 oil fields, 79.5 Mt CO2 can be stored in
Batman Region, 28.7 Mt CO2 can be stored in Adiyaman Region, and only 473 kt CO2 can be
stored in Trace region fields (Akin 2019).

TR2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
TR2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
The only known CO2 capture research activity is the Turkish participation in the H2020
MOF4AIR project in which 14 partners will evaluate carbon capture based on Metal Organic
Frameworks (MOFs) technologies. TUPRAS, a partner in the project and Turkey’s largest oil
enterprise and the 7th largest refinery enterprise in Europe, will host a MOF carbon capture
pilot study in their Izmit facility.

TR2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
A 90 km long high-pressure carbon-steel pipeline has, since 1986, been used to transport CO2
from the Dodan natural gas field to the Bati-Raman oil field where it is used for CO2-EOR (see
TR2.3). At Dodan, the naturally occurring CO2 is separated from the natural gas, processed in
absorption and dehydration units to remove H2S and H2O, then compressed for transportation
by pipeline (Sahin et al. 2012).

302
TR2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
In Turkey, CO2-EOR projects were mainly conducted for increasing oil recovery rather than for
CO2 storage as the main objective. The first large scale commercial CO2-EOR project in Turkey
was started in 1986 in Bati Raman by the Turkish Petroleum Corporation. The Bati Raman
Field, discovered in 1961 in Southeastern Turkey, is the largest oil field in Turkey with
approximately 300 million Sm3 (1,850 million barrels) of initial oil in place (OOIP). Primary
recovery driven by natural depletion was slow: in the 25 years from 1961 to 1986 less than 2%
of the original oil in place was produced. The producing formation is Garzan limestone, a
heterogeneous carbonate. The reservoir fluid is heavy crude oil with 9.7-15.1 API gravity and
450 to 1000 cp viscosity at reservoir conditions. To increase recovery and support the
declining reservoir pressure, an immiscible CO2 flooding project (EOR) was commenced in
1986 using natural CO2 from the Dodan gas field as described in TR2.2). By the end of
December 2011, the cumulative production at Bati Raman was 106.3 million barrels oil of
which 70.4 million barrels were obtained during CO2 injection. The total gas reserve of Dodan
gas field had been estimated as 383 Bscf. The cumulative amount of CO2 injected into the
Bati Raman Field was 352.88 Bscf and the cumulative amount of CO2 that reached the
production wells was 252.9 Bscf. However, in 1991, recycle compressors were installed at
Bati Raman and 115.8 Bscf of CO2 was re-injected into the reservoir (Sahin et al. 2012).

The second full field CO2 injection was performed in the Batı Kozluca Field, located in
Southeastern Turkey, by Turkish Petroleum in operation since 1985, using natural CO2 from
the Camurlu Field, 10 km away. In 2004, a CO2-EOR project was started at Batı Kozluca with a
primary recovery of about 3%. After 5 years of injection, recovery reached above 4% (Sahin et
al. 2010).

Another CO2-EOR operation was conducted in the Camurlu Field, which has 60 million Sm3
(380 million barrels) of heavy oil (284 cp viscosity) in place. The CO2 used in the pilot tests
was sourced from a CO2-rich natural gas zone underlying the oil reservoir. Due to the
insufficient capacity of surface facilities, the desired amount of CO2 could not be injected in
the planned time period and the project was stopped (Sahin et al. 2010).

A CO2-EOR pilot application was conducted at Ikiztepe field by Japan National Oil Corporation
(JNOC) and Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) in a collaboration with the Japan EOR
Research Association (JEORA) in 1987. The primary recovery was only 0.07% of the original
oil in place. The CO2-EOR pilot test showed an improvement in oil viscosity (Ishii et al. 1997).

The current GECO H2020 project focuses re-injecting greenhouse gases, such as CO2,
produced from the subsurface during exploitation of geothermal energy. This decreases the
emissions from geothermal power plants. The GECO - Geothermal Emission COntrol project
is funded by the HORIZON 2020 Framework Programme of European Union and coordinated
by Reykjavík Energy. From Turkey, Zorlu Enerji Elektrik Üretim Inc. and Middle East Technical

303
University are taking part in the GECO consortium, which also has industrial and research and
technology development partners from France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Germany, UK and Iceland.
In the project, geothermal demonstration sites were selected in Turkey, Iceland, Germany and
Italy. Through the GECO project, a pilot CO2 injection will be conducted in the Kizildere
geothermal field, located in the Denizli and Aydin provinces of western Turkey. In addition to
reducing the CO2 emissions of geothermal power production, the project aims at maintaining
the sustainability of the reservoir.

Another pilot-scale study is the SUCCEED (Synergetic Utilisation of CO2 storage Coupled with
geothermal EnErgy Deployment) project, which is funded by ACT – Accelerating CCS
Technologies, an ERA-NET Co-fund. The objective of the project is demonstrating the
feasibility of the re-injection of produced CO2 to improve geothermal performance, as well as
storing the CO2. For this purpose, eight partners from industry and academia will be working
together. Project coordinator is the Imperial College London and partners from Turkey are
Zorlu Enerji Elektrik Üretim Inc. and Middle East Technical University. In the project, CO2
injection operations, site performance and reservoir behaviour will be monitored at the
Kizildere Field in Turkey and Hellisheidi in Iceland. Pre- and post-CO2 injection simulations and
different CO2 injection strategies will be applied.

The first pilot-scale injection of CO2 into a geothermal reservoir in Turkey (along with other
non-condensable gases) was done in 2016–2017 at the Umurlu Geothermal Field. During the
pilot study, a total of 134,400 m3 (1248 t) CO2 were injected into the reservoir for 20 days, with
an average flow rate of 2.65 t/hour (Yücetaş et al. 2018).

TR2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
None.

TR2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation has a programme for the industry to officially
monitor national greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Regulation on the
Monitoring of Greenhouse Gas Emissions that went into force on 25th April 2012 (Official
Gazette Number: 28274). The regulation has been revised and republished on 17th May 2014
(Official Gazette Number: 29003). The industrial facilities that carry out activities including
fossil fuel combustion, refinery processes, cement, coke, iron, steel production and
processing are obliged to monitor and report the greenhouse gas emissions each year to the
Ministry. Emission reports prepared by facilities are verified by independent accredited
bodies. By this reporting system, greenhouse gas emissions of industrial facilities are
obtained. After the assessment of CO2 emissions of industrial facilities, new strategies and

304
plans should be developed to use available pipelines and facilities or construct new networks
to transport CO2 to the potential storage sites. One of the ERA-Net ACT Projects, ECOBASE
(2017–2021), focused on creating business models required to realise CO2-EOR and storage
projects as an accelerating factor for developing CCUS clusters in southeastern Europe. From
Turkey, the Middle East Technical University METU PAL was a partner.

TR3. National policies, legislation and regulations

TR3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
Turkey, an OECD member, was recognised by the Parties as a country having a special position
in comparison to that of other countries listed in Annex 1 of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2001. It was decided to exclude Turkey from the
list of countries in Annex 2 of the Convention. After this decision, Turkey has become a party
to the UNFCCC in 2004. Following the legislation accepted in the Turkish National Assembly
on 5th February 2009 (Official Gazette Number: 5386) and Cabinet Decision on 13th May 2009,
Turkey became a part of the Kyoto Protocol. However, as Turkey was not a part of UNFCCC at
the signing of the Protocol, it was not included in the Annex B of the Protocol where the
emission targets are set. As a result, Turkey does not have any quantified emission limitation
or reduction obligations in the first (2008–2012) and second (2012–2020) commitment
periods.

On 3rd May 2010, the National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS) was approved by the Higher
Planning Council, including the activities that should be carried out by each sector for the
prevention of climate change. In the NCCS, the main Turkish objective was stated as “to take
part in the global efforts for preventing climate change, which is a common concern of
mankind, determined with common mind in cooperation with the international parties and in
the light of objective and scientific evidence; in accordance with the sustainable development
policies, and within the framework of the principle of ‘shared but differentiated responsibilities’
and Turkey’s special circumstances” and to provide “its citizens with a high quality of life and
welfare with low carbon intensity”. Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation are
envisaged to be 7% less than what they would have been in the Reference Scenario by 2020.

The National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) 2011–2013 was prepared for the
implementation of the National Climate Change Strategy within the framework of the
Developing Turkey’s National Climate Change Action Plan Project that was coordinated by the
Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation and carried out through the agency of
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Turkey. The purposes and objectives of
the action plan are divided into different sectors, such as energy, building, industry,
transportation, waste, agriculture, land use and forestry. The aims for the adaptation to
climate change are also explained separately. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is

305
targeted in vegetal and animal production, new settlements and industrial processes. In the
building sector, the aim is a 10% emission reduction compared to existing settlements.
However, in other sectors there is no set value for the emissions limitations. Increasing the
sequestration of carbon in forestry by 15% of the 2007 value, using clean coal technologies,
increasing energy efficiency, and increasing the share of renewable energy are among the
mitigation plans.

TR3.2 National legislation and regulations

There is no law that regulates carbon capture and geological storage. The usage of the
underground is regulated by the General Directorate of Mining and Petroleum Affairs
(MAPEG). The General Directorate of Petroleum Affairs and the General Directorate of Mining
Affairs were abolished and the General Directorate of Mining and Petroleum Affairs (MAPEG)
was established with the decree issued in the Official Gazette dated 9th July 2018 and
numbered 30473. MAPEG gives exploration and operation licences for related natural
resources and takes inventory of the natural resources according to the Turkish Petroleum
Law number 6491 accepted on 30th May 2013. Mainly the law regulates the exploration,
development and production of petroleum sources. The law states that CO2 that is produced
from the petroleum fields could be used for enhanced oil recovery purposes. In order to use a
petroleum field as a storage medium, it should be depleted completely and the Directorate
should give consent. If a field could be used technically as a storage medium, for other energy
activities and at the same time for petroleum production, the storage operation is allowed.
Otherwise the Ministry would choose which use has priority. As a state corporation Turkish
Petroleum has the rights and duties to make all petroleum related activities such as
exploration, drilling, production, transportation, storage and refinery processes. There is no
regulatory barrier that directly prevents using the underground for CO2 storage purposes.

In Turkey, industries that carry out activities including fossil fuel combustion, refinery
processes, cement, coke, iron, steel production and processing are subject to annual
monitoring, reporting and verification processes for greenhouse gas emissions. Emission
reports and monitoring plans are delivered to the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation in
accordance with the Regulation on the Monitoring of Greenhouse Gas Emissions that went
into force on 25th April 2012 (Official Gazette Number: 28274). The regulation has been revised
and republished on 17th May 2014 (Official Gazette Number: 29003). Obligations on
monitoring and reporting under the regulation are stated in “Communique of Monitoring and
Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (Official Gazette Number: 29068, Date: 22nd July 2014).

“Communique on Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reports and Authorization of

Verifiers” went into force on 2nd April 2015 (Official Gazette Number: 29314) and was replaced
on 2nd December 2017 by the "Communique on Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Accreditation of Verifiers" (Official Gazette Number: 30258).

306
TR4. Research
TR4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
University funds or TUBITAK (Turkish Scientific and Technology Council) funds are available
for interested researchers. There is no specific national programme for research related to
geological storage of CO2.

Table TR: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on
CO2 storage.
Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well

Addressed X - - - - - X - -
106G110 (2009)

106G110 (2009)
KAMAG Project

KAMAG Project
examples

TUBITAK,

TUBITAK,
Project

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

TR4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

Some of the research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage are listed
below:

- Turkish Petroleum Corporation (Research and field application)

- Middle East Technical University - Petroleum Research Center
- Izmir Technology Institute
- TÜPRAŞ – ARGE

307
TR4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure
- TÜPRAŞ Izmit Refinery (capture pilot site, MOF4AIR project is ongoing).
- Umurlu Geothermal Field (CO2 injection pilot tests have been done).
- Kizildere Geothermal Field (GECO and SUCCEED projects are ongoing). Gas analyses
are conducted at METU PAL.

TR4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
Middle East Technical University- Petroleum Research Center (METU PAL) has been involved
in the following EU-funded research projects addressing aspects relevant for/related to CCS:

- CGS Europe – Pan-European coordination action on CO2 Geological Storage (2010–2013).

- ESTMAP – Energy Storage Mapping and Planning project (2015–2016).
- ENOS – Enabling onshore CO2 storage in Europe (2016–2020)
- ECOBASE – Establishing CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Business Advantages in South
Eastern Europe (2017–2020)
- GECO – Geothermal Emission Control (2018–2022)
- SUCCEED – Synergetic Utilisation of CO2 storage Coupled with geothermal EnErgy
Deployment (2019–2022)

TÜPRAŞ has been involved in the following EU-funded research projects addressing CO2
capture and usage:

- MOF4AIR – Metal Organic Frameworks for carbon dioxide Adsorption processes in power
production and energy Intensive industRies (2019–2022)
- COZMOS – Efficient CO2 conversion over multisite Zeolite-Metal nanocatalysts to fuels
and olefins.

308
TR5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement
TR5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Although there is general knowledge about climate change in the public, there is not a
common, detailed knowledge and understanding about CCS technology. In 2011, the
CO2GeoNet educational brochure “What does CO2 geological storage really mean?” was
translated into Turkish (translated title: CO2’nin yeraltında depolanması gerçekte ne anlama
geliyor?) as part of a study carried out by METU-PAL to increase the awareness of the public.

Also, a CO2 Capture and Storage Regional Awareness-Raising Workshop was organised by
METU-PAL in June 2012 in Ankara and distinguished speakers gave valuable information
about CCS operations.

In November 2019, a presentation entitled “Climate Change and CO2 Storage” was given by
METU-PAL to the students of Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli Secondary School to enhance public
awareness of CCS.

Moreover, in 2020, in the scope of the ECOBASE project, a questionnaire survey was used to
find out the level of the public's perception about the capture, storage and use of CO2.

TR5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

5.3 Public engagement

None.

309
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in UKRAINE (UA; as of 30th June 2021)

UA1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
At present, modern geophysical research methods are used to search for and assess
promising CO2 storage sites in Ukraine. According to the experts, on the territory of Ukraine
there are conditions for CO2 storage in the Dniprovsko-Donetskiy basin in the east, and in the
Lvivskiy depression in the west. It should be noted that the storage capacity of CO2 in depleted
hydrocarbon deposits in Ukraine is limited. The saline aquifers apparently have a much greater
potential for CO2 storage. These are deep sedimentary rocks, saturated with formation waters
or waters with a high concentration of dissolved salts, which are identical to saline aquifers in
hydrocarbon provinces. Saline aquifers are widespread in Ukraine and can potentially serve
as the storage for large amounts of CO2.

Under the EU-funded project "Low carbon opportunities for Industrial Regions of Ukraine
(LCOIR-UA)” (Grant Contract No. DCI/ENV 2010/243-865)”, work was underway in Ukraine to
develop a CO2 storage atlas. Currently, the detailed quantitative assessment work being
carried out includes: structural analysis, seismic exploration, injection testing, and modelling.
There is a need to raise additional funds to continue creating a knowledge base so that the
storage of CO2 in the Ukrainian subsurface becomes cost-effective. Further development of
CCS projects in Ukraine is negatively affected by economic and political factors.

Within the targeted interdisciplinary project of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
(NASU) "Scientific, technical and economic-ecological principles of low-carbon development
of Ukraine" under the project section "Challenges and opportunities of low-carbon
development of Ukraine: the national context of the global problem", the NASU Radio-
Environmental Centre has carried out a study "Possibilities of greenhouse gas disposal in the
subsurface of Ukraine, criteria and prospects for the search of hydrogen in the areas of
modern degassing of oil and gas basins of Ukraine" in 2019. A previous project was carried
out to assess the possibility of CO2 storage in the subsurface of Ukraine. The possibilities of
CO2-EOR and CO2 storage in carbonate reservoirs of oil and gas regions - Dniprovsko-
Donetskiy Basin, northern outskirts of Donbas, Outer zone of Fore-Carpathian Depression, and
Lvivska Depression, were considered. The estimated storage potential for CO2 could be
around 30 billion m3.

310
UA2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —
large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
UA2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
See UA 2.4

UA2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

UA2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
None.

UA2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
The project "Low Carbon Capabilities for Industrial Regions of Ukraine" (LCOIR-UA) was
implemented in 2011–2015 by Donetsk National University (Donetsk, Ukraine) funded by the
EU Thematic Programme ”Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
including Energy (ENRTP; theme "Cooperation on clean coal technologies and carbon capture
and storage "; grant contract No. DCI/ENV 2010/243-865). The aim of the project was to
improve the knowledge of the Ukrainian context for the implementation of climate-friendly
technologies, to identify potential targets for current climate adaptation programmes in
Ukraine, and to create awareness among key stakeholders about climate technologies as the
tools to combat climate change. As a result of the project, GIS models for the sources and
sinks of CO2 were created, as well as an integrated GIS database with information about
existing coal mines and opportunities to use the Ukrainian gas transportation system for
climate-friendly technologies in order to see the opportunities and obstacles to climate-
friendly technologies in Ukraine. Recommendations were provided on the actual
implementation of climate technologies for facilities in the industrial regions of Ukraine.

UA2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

None.

311
UA3. National policies, legislation and regulations
UA3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
To fulfil Ukraine's international obligations under paragraph 19 of Article 4 of the Paris
Agreement, paragraph 35 of Decision 1/CP.21 of the Conference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as to comply with the orders of the Cabinet
of Ministers of Ukraine of 7th December 2016, № 932-r “On approval of the Concept for the
implementation of state policy in the field of climate change until 2030”, and of 28th March
2018, № 244-r “On approval of the Government's priority action plan for 2018”, the Strategy for
Low Carbon Development of Ukraine until 2050 was developed. This regulatory document
envisages the introduction of innovative technologies for carbon capture, storage and reuse,
which, in addition to policies and measures in the field of energy efficiency and renewable
energy, will allow for the years 2012–2050 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1064 Mt
CO2 eq.

According to the Draft Strategy for Low Carbon Development of Ukraine until 2050 (released
in 2018), it is planned to increase the volume of carbon sequestration and retention. Under the
policy item “Introduce incentives, support or define requirements for advanced fossil fuel
energy technologies”, assistance in the development of new technologies is foreseen,
including coercion and / or incentives to use advanced technologies for thermal power plants
(TPP) using non-renewable energy sources (primarily coal). Coercion implies that all or a
certain part of coal-fired power plants use a certain technology, in particular IGCC (Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle) and CCSR (Carbon Capture and Storage Ready). Incentives will
include direct subsidies and / or assistance in raising finance for the introduction of the latest
technologies and / or long-term agreements for the purchase of TPP products or services.

UA3.2 National legislation and regulations

To date, the Draft National Waste Management Strategy for Ukraine until 2030 has been
developed, which is based on the Framework Directive № 2008/98 / EC on waste, Directive №
1999/31 / EC on waste disposal, Directive № 2006/21 / EU on waste management industry.
The aim of this strategy is to create an effective waste management system on an innovative
basis, which in the long run should ensure comprehensive recycling of natural resources and
waste recycling.

312
According to Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine "The land, subsurface, air, water and
other natural resources located within the territory of Ukraine, natural resources of its
continental shelf, exclusive (marine) economic zone, are the property of the Ukrainian people."
On behalf of the Ukrainian people, the rights of the owner are exercised by state authorities
and local governments within the limits set by the Constitution. The competent authority in
the field of subsoil use in Ukraine is the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural
Resources.

UA4. Research
UA4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
The project "Possibilities of greenhouse gas disposal in subsurface of Ukraine, criteria and
prospects for searching for hydrogen in areas of modern degassing of oil and gas basins of
Ukraine" was implemented by NASU Radio-environmental Centre in 2019 within the NASU
targeted interdisciplinary project "Scientific, technical and economic-ecological principles of
low carbon development". It was funded from the State Budget of Ukraine.

Table UA: Overview of research topics addressed by the recent nationally funded research project
“Possibilities of greenhouse gas disposal in subsurface of Ukraine, criteria and prospects for
searching for hydrogen deposits in areas of modern degassing of oil and gas basins of
Ukraine".
Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex
capacity
Storage

impact

Social
Topic

Well

Addressed X (x) (x) (x) X (x) X X –

X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

UA4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

- Donetsk Vasyl Stus National University
- Radio-Environmental Centre, NASU
- S.I.Subotin Institute of Geophysics, NASU
- M.P.Semenenko Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Ore Formation, NASU

313
UA4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure
None.

UA4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research

projects related to CCS
The project "Low Carbon Capabilities for Industrial Regions of Ukraine" (LCOIR-UA) was
implemented in 2011–2015 by Donetsk National University (Donetsk, Ukraine) funded by the
EU Thematic Programme ”Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
including Energy (ENRTP; theme "Cooperation in clean coal and carbon capture and storage
technologies"; grant contract No. DCI/ENV 2010/243-865) - see UA2.4.

UA5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

UA5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
No information available.

UA5.2 National advocates for CCS

None.

UA5.3 Public engagement

In order to discuss carbon capture and storage in Ukraine, the Norwegian non-governmental
organisation "Bellona" had prepared a publication "Low-carbon opportunities for industrial
regions of Ukraine" in 2013. This publication emphasised public participation in CCS projects
in Ukraine. According to this document, in particular the CCS technology should be introduced
and discussed as an integrated technology in the final decarbonisation strategy for the
Ukrainian economy; early introduction of CCS as a technology tool, along with other
technologies such as renewable energy and bioenergy, will raise awareness and provide
solutions to continue CCS implementation on a stronger basis. The benefits of CCS
technologies in the Ukrainian environment should be noted from the beginning, including the
benefits for Ukrainian heavy industry and the continued use of local energy sources. The
planning and management of any pilot or demonstration facility should be transparent, with
active advocacy and sustained engagement with local groups and stakeholders.

314
Summarising the state-of-play on geological CO2 storage
in the UK (GB; as of 30th June 2021)

GB1. National storage assessment, storage options, potential and

capacity
The UK has a national storage database called CO2 Stored. CO2Stored provides an overview
of CO2 storage data for over 500 potential CO2 storage sites around offshore UK. Overall
theoretical capacity (P50) is 68,666 Mt CO2. The original data in CO2Stored was developed by
the UK Storage Appraisal Project (UKSAP), which was commissioned and funded by the
Energy Technologies Institute (ETI). CO2Stored was hosted and developed by the British
Geological Survey and The Crown Estate between 2013 and 2018 and is now wholly operated
and maintained by the British Geological Survey.

GB2. CO2 capture, injection and storage projects —

large-scale, demonstration and pilot projects
GB2.1 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2
capture & projects/sites in preparation
None.

GB2.2 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

transport & projects/sites in preparation
None.

GB2.3 Past and current large-scale/demonstration/pilot projects for CO2

geological storage & projects/sites in preparation
There are storage sites under development as parts of full chain projects (see later section).

315
GB2.4 Past and current full-chain CCS projects & projects/sites in preparation
A FEED study for a CCS project with CO2 capture from the Peterhead power plant and storage
by BP in the Miller field was proposed in 2005–2007. This project did not move forward in the
end as funding was not available on the required timescale.

The first UK CCS competition was launched in 2007 with significant funding to come from the
UK government. The aim was to fund a full chain demonstration or post-combustion capture.
Four projects were submitted which were whittled down to two preferred bidders: Kingsnorth
CCS project (E.ON) and Peterhead/Longannet CCS project (SSE). E.ON withdrew and
negotiations with SSE were unsuccessful (2011) so the first CCS competition did not in the
end result in a CCS demonstration project in the UK.

The second CCS competition was launched in 2012, four projects were shortlisted and two
preferred bidders were announced:
1) White Rose CCS project with capture at the Drax power plant, storage in a saline aquifer in
the Bunter Sandstone Group, closure 5/42, also known as the Endurance structure (Capture
Power Ltd formed by General Electric, Drax, BOC to work on the White Rose project, with
National Grid subcontracted to work on storage) and,
2) Peterhead CCS project with capture at Peterhead power plant and storage in the Captain
Sandstone Formation in the Goldeneye field (Shell and SSE).
White Rose was also successful in applying for NER300 funding. Key documents from the
Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) studies for both projects are available online. As of
2021, a number of these CCS projects are still under development with new partnerships and
funding even though the second competition did not provide the expected funding at the time.

In 2016, the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) became responsible for licencing CO2 storage
(previously it was the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) for the
UK offshore with the exception of the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland, which Scottish
ministers authorise.

A list of applications for CO2 appraisal and storage licences is available through the UK Oil
and Gas Authority. These licences are granted under the UK Energy Act 2008, which is part of
the transposition of the EU Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of CO2. The main
document is the Carbon Dioxide Regulation SI 2010/2221 which transposes many of the other
requirements of the Directive, this came into force in the UK on 1st October 2010. In addition
to the licence, the operator also requires a lease for the site from the Crown Estate/Scottish
Crown Estate (the governmental body that owns the rights to the subsurface). Under the
appraisal and storage licence, the operators can carry out studies to confirm the suitability of
the site for geological storage. When site viability is confirmed, the operator can then ask the
Crown Estate to activate their full Storage Lease.

316
There are four active appraisal and storage licences (see also large-scale projects under
preparation).

Northern Endurance Partnership: BP, Eni, Equinor, National Grid, Shell and Total have formed
a partnership to develop offshore CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in the UK North
Sea, with BP as operator. The plan is to develop infrastructure that will store CO2 from the
proposed Net Zero Teesside (NZT) and Zero Carbon Humber (ZCH) projects. A licence for CO2
storage in the offshore “Endurance” structure was granted to National Grid during 2012, this
was then amended and BP and Equinor joined National Grid in the licence for Endurance
during 2020. The carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licence ID is CS001.

Goldeneye (Carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licence CS002): A full scale project was
planned that would store CO2 in offshore Scotland. The proposed Peterhead CCS Project
planned to store CO2 in the Goldeneye gas field in the North Sea. The plan was to capture up
to 10 Mt CO2 from the Peterhead gas-fired power plant over a 10-year period. The CO2 storage
licence was granted in 2013 but terminated in 2016 after the decision was made not to move
the project forward when the UK CCS Commercialisation Programmes did not move forward.

The ACORN project (Carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licence CS003): This project aims
to deliver low-cost CCS in the north east of Scotland by 2023. To achieve this, the project is
utilising existing infrastructure wherever possible. CO2 will be captured at the St Fergus Gas
Terminal (near Aberdeen). Existing pipelines will be used to transport the CO2 offshore.
Storage will be in the Captain Formation. The project is led by the company Pale Blue Dot. The
aim is to start storing CO2 in the mid 2020s.

HyNet (Carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licence CS004): ENI UK has obtained an
appraisal and storage licence. This project aims to provide a tangible pathway to energy
transition and de carbonisation. The project plans to capture and transport CO2 from exiting
industries and future hydrogen production sites for fuel switching, heating, power and
transportation in the context of the UK targets for net zero emissions by 2050. The project
aims to store CO2 in the Hamilton, Hamilton North and Lennox depleted hydrocarbon fields
(Liverpool Bay area).

GB2.5 Plans for CCUS cluster development

The UK Industrial Strategy White Paper sets out the UK strategy “to put UK at the forefront of
the industries of the future”. One of four “Grand Challenges” identified was “Clean Growth”.
The Clean Growth challenge includes the mission to “establish the world’s first net-zero
carbon industrial cluster by 2040 and 4 low-carbon clusters by 2030”. The mission is backed
by GBP 170 million public investment through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF)
matched by GBP 261 million from industry. The deployment, cluster plans and UK Industrial
Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre (IDRIC) workstreams will operate on a

317
collaborative basis through knowledge sharing, industry engagement and collective
leadership. The ISCF has a two-phase funding model, at the date of writing, a number of
projects have been funded under phase 1. Six industrial decarbonisation feasibility studies
were carried out under phase 1 through an investment of GBP 132 million:

Scotland’s Net Zero Infrastructure - NECCUS which is an alliance of industry, government and
experts. This includes CCUS focused around the ACORN project which aims to eventually
develop the St Fergus Gas Terminal as a Hub for CCS.

Net Zero Teesside is a Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) project, based in
Teesside. This project aims to decarbonise a cluster of carbon-intensive businesses by as
early as 2030 and deliver the UK’s first zero-carbon industrial cluster. Net Zero Teesside is a
full chain CCUS project comprising of a consortium of five members of the Oil and Gas Climate
Initiative (OGCI) BP, ENI, Equinor, Shell and Total. CO2 storage is planned in the offshore
Endurance structure (saline aquifer).

Zero Carbon Humber/Humber Industrial Decarbonisation Deployment project is focused

around the Equinor-led Hydrogen to Humber (H2H) Saltend project that will establish the
world’s largest hydrogen production plant with carbon capture (Zero Carbon Humber
Partnership includes Associated British Ports, British Steel, Centrica Storage Ltd, Drax Group,
Equinor, Mitsubishi Power, National Grid Ventures, px Group, SSE Thermal, Saltend
Cogeneration Company Limited, Uniper, and the University of Sheffield’s Advanced
Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC). CO2 storage is planned in the offshore Endurance
structure (saline aquifer)

HyNet North West is based on the production of hydrogen from natural gas. It includes the
development of a new hydrogen pipeline; and the creation of the UK’s first carbon capture, and
storage (CCS) infrastructure. From 2025, HyNet will produce, store and distribute hydrogen as
well as capture and store carbon from industry in the North West of England and North Wales.
(see also UK2.4)

South Wales Industrial Cluster: A “clustering” group of major industrial companies in the
region stretching from the Pembrokeshire Coast to the Severn Bridge along the M4 corridor.
The SWIC plans to implement smart technologies following a clear roadmap to
decarbonisation (Efficiency, Fuel, Switching, Smart Networks, CCU, CCS). SWIC will develop
smart integrated projects towards regional decarbonisation to drive net zero carbon in energy
and heavy industry in South Wales.

Green Hydrogen for Humberside, deployment study: ITM Power, an energy storage and clean
fuel company, with its partner Element Energy plan to assess the feasibility and scope of
deploying green hydrogen in Humberside.

On 19th October 2021, the UK Government published a policy paper under the 2008 Climate
Change Act; Net Zero Strategy: build back greener. In this document, two industrial clusters

318
have been taken forward for development in Stage 1 and are now in the negotiation phase:
The East Coast Cluster (Northern Endurance partnership, comprising Net Zero Teesside and
Zero Carbon Humber with CO2 storage in the Endurance saline aquifer store) and Hynet in
North Wales (blue hydrogen production with CO2 storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs
in Liverpool Bay). The Acorn Project in NE Scotland is currently on the reserve list, but is
expected to be developed in Stage 2.

In addition to the industrial decarbonisation projects above, the ISCF funded GBP 8 million for
cluster plans:

• Net Zero Tees Valley (led by Tees Valley Combined Authority)

• Scotland’s Net Zero Roadmap (led by NECCUS)
• Humber Industrial Decarbonisation Roadmap (led by Humber Local Enterprise
Partnership)
• North West Hydrogen and Energy Cluster: Route to net zero (led by Peel
Environmental)
• South Wales Industrial Cluster (Led by CR Plus Consultancy)
• Repowering the Black Country (led by Black Country Consortium)
The ISCF also invested GBP 20 million in the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and
Innovation Centre (IDRIC). The aim of IDRIC is to become a world-leading, high impact
research and innovation centre, acting as the national focal point and international gateway
for UK industrial decarbonisation research and innovation. At the date of writing, IDRIC was in
the launch period.

GB3. National policies, legislation and regulations

GB3.1 National policies w.r.t. GHG emission reduction targets/climate strategies
The UK Climate Change Act 2008 amends the Energy Act 2004 and sets out targets for 2050
including emission reduction and carbon budgeting. The Climate Change Act led to the
establishment of an independent statutory body during 2008 that sets the carbon budget for
the UK, the Climate Change Committee. Progress and priorities on CCUS are reviewed by the
ministry-led CCUS council. The Climate Change Act, was again amended in 2019, committing
the UK to “net zero” by 2050 and enshrining these targets in law.

Under the Climate Change Act, the UK government launched their Clean Growth Strategy in
2017. Within this strategy, CCUS played a significant role in reducing industrial emissions.
During 2020, the Government set out their 10 point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution which
was followed by the Energy White Paper setting out plans for a net zero emission future for
the UK. The envisioned role for CCUS in reaching emission targets was again clearly set out,
with the ambition to capture 10 Mt CO2 per year by 2030 and the announcement of investment

319
of up to GBP 1 billion in establishment of four industrial clusters in the UK. The Industrial
Decarbonisation Strategy was launched in 2021, setting out plans to achieve net zero.
decarbonise regions and clusters (see section on clusters section).

The UK aims to become a global technology leader for CCUS and to ensure the option of
deploying CCUS at scale during the 2030s, subject to costs coming down sufficiently. To
achieve this ambition, the UK has three main actions: i) re-affirming commitment to deploying
CCUS in the UK subject to cost reduction; ii) international collaboration on CCUS; iii)
CCUS innovation. The government continues to work with the ongoing initiatives in Teesside,
Merseyside and Grangemouth to test the potential for development of CCUS industrial
decarbonisation clusters.

A review of business models that could enable CCUS in the UK was published in late 2020.

GB3.2 National legislation and regulations

EU Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide was transposed into UK
law in 2010. The Energy Act 2008 forms part of this transition and enables the licencing
regime for offshore storage of CO2 in the UK. In the UK, the Crown owns the subsurface and
all mineral rights and a lease from them is required to carry out activities such as drilling and
CO2 storage; a licence for CO2 storage and appraisal can be obtained through the Oil and Gas
Authority.

Given the abundance of offshore storage, the UK is focussed in developing offshore storage
with the associated economies of scale that brings. It is also generally expected that societal
acceptance of offshore storage will be easier to obtain than onshore storage. Onshore UK
does not have individual sites where large amounts of CO2 could be stored, but smaller pilot
scale projects would be possible. Onshore storage is permissible and is not legally banned
but the UK focus is on developing offshore storage.

GB4. Research
GB4.1 National funding for research related to CCS and research priorities
The UK is part of Mission Innovation, CEM, CSLF and ERA-NET ACT as part of their
commitment to international collaboration on CCUS. National funding for CCUS and hydrogen
covers the full range of TRL from R&D on innovative new concepts to assessing the feasibility
of decarbonisation of industrial clusters and deployment of CCUS projects. Through the CCUS
Innovation Programme, the UK government aimed to reduce costs for CCUS. Most recently,
projects have been invited to request support through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund
– Decarbonisation of Industrial Clusters Deployment. Projects invited through to the second

320
stage focus on decarbonised industrial clusters utilising CCUS and/or hydrogen. UKRI
distributed funding to support decarbonisation of large industrial clusters in the UK through
the Industrial Clusters Mission which is part of the Grand Challenges Mission set out in a
policy paper issued by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The
Net Zero Innovation Portfolio provides funding for low carbon technologies. The UK
government is investing in biomass and CDR and a new biomass strategy is expected in 2022,
this strategy is expected to include consideration of biomass and CCS following
recommendations from the UK Committee on Climate Change. CCUS is also included in the
UK COVID recovery strategy.

The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) is the main UK government
agency for funding research and training in engineering, physical sciences and information
and communication technologies. EPSRC distributes government funding including CCS
specific grants to largely academic consortia. The UK CCS Research Centre (UKCCSRC) is
supported by the EPSRC. The mission of UKCCSRC is to ensure that CCS plays an effective
role in helping the UK achieve net zero emissions by 2020. UKCCSRC draws together a number
of Universities and the BGS to provide a national focal point for CCS research by bringing
together the UK’s leading CCS research centres.

In Scotland, a number of Universities and the BGS have joined together to form SCCS –
Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage. They have been involved in many CCS project over the
past 15 years. Detailed reports may be found at SCCS’s homepage. Example SCCS projects
are:

CO2Multistore joint industry project (2012–2015): This project assessed the impacts of
multiple storage projects injecting into a regional storage asset, in this case, the Captain
Sandstone in the Northern North Sea. This project was funded by The Crown Estate.

ACT ACORN (2017–2019): The aim of the study was to explore a variety of options to create
a hub in St Fergus that would be the starting point for a regional CCS network in Scotland. The
work funded under ACT carried out a number of studies to prepare ACORN for the Front End
Engineering and Design stage. Research by Aberdeen University, University of Edinburgh,
University of Liverpool, Heriot-Watt University, Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage, Radboud
University and the Bellona Foundation. It was funded by ACT (Accelerating CCS Technologies),
BEIS (UK), RCN (NO), RVO (NL), and was co-funded by the European Commission under the
ERA-NET instrument of the Horizon 2020 programme.

321
Table UK: Overview of research topics addressed by recent nationally funded research projects on CO2
storage.
Storage capacity

Land planning &

Environmental
infrastructure

management

technologies

Mitigation &
remediation
assessment

acceptance
Monitoring
Modelling
Complex

impact

Social
Topic

Well
Addressed X X X X X X X X X
Project examples

CO2Multistore

CO2Multistore

CO2Multistore
ALIGN-CCUS

ALIGN CCUS
ELEGANCY

ELEGANCY

ELEGANCY
REX-CO2
ACCORN

Pre-ACT

Pre-ACT

Pre-ACT
DETECT

DETECT

DETECT
ACORN

ACORN
SENSE

SENSE

SENSE
CRIUS
ECCO

QICS

QICS

QICS
X: topic addressed, (x): topic addressed to some extent, -: topic not addressed.

Project names and acronyms:

- ACORN ACT Acorn programme

- SENSE Assuring integrity of CO2 storage sites through ground surface monitoring (ACT)
- REX-CO2 Reusing existing wells for CO2 storage operations (ACT)
- ALIGN-CCUS Accelerating Low carbon Industrial Growth through CCUS (ACT)
- DETECT Determining the risk of CO2 leakage along fractures in caprocks using an integrated
monitoring and hydro-mechanical-chemical approach (ACT)
- ELEGANCY Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy via Hydrogen and CCS (ACT)
- Pre-ACT Pressure control and conformance management for safe and efficient CO2 storage –
Accelerating CCS Technologies (ACT)
- CO2MultiStore CO2MultiStore Joint Industry Project
- CRIUS Carbon Research into Underground Storage
- QICS Quantifying and Monitoring Potential Ecosystem Impacts of Geological Carbon
Storage
- ECCO Evolution of Conformance and Containment Risk Over Time in CO2 Storage Projects –
the Link to Post Closure Stewardship and Handover

GB4.2 Research institutions involved in research related to CO2 storage

CCUS is an important research topic in the UK.

Major players: Please see previous description of UKCCSRC and SCCS in GB4.1. The national
geological survey (BGS) is very active in CO2 storage research – see website for details. The
UK is a member of the SET Plan Implementation Working Group 9 on CCS and BGS is a
member of the current CSA which supports the IWG9. BGS is also a member of the European
Energy Research Alliance (EERA) Joint Programme on CCS and a member of its management

322
board. BGS is a partner in the Norwegian CCS Research Centre which addresses the major
barriers identified within leading CCS projects.

There are many universities researching CO2 storage including the Universities of Aberdeen,
Cambridge, Coventry, Cranfield, Durham, Edinburgh, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham,
Heriot Watt and Imperial College London, Strathclyde. National research centres such as
National Oceanography Centre and Plymouth Marine Laboratory are also involved in CO2
storage related research.

GB4.3 Existing larger scale research infrastructure

GeoEnergy Test Bed (GTB): The GTB is an initiative of the University of Nottingham and the
British Geological Survey. The site represents a GBP 6 million investment to support new and
emergent geo-energy sectors critical for a sustainable energy future, including GBP 2.5 million
UK government-funding through the Energy Research Accelerator (ERA) project.

The geology at the GTB offers the opportunity to access rocks equivalent to those under the
North Sea that are of interest for geological storage. Although CO2 is stored at much greater
depths than we are studying at the GTB, this field laboratory enables researchers to refine
strategies for monitoring the zone above the reservoir - an essential part of proving site
conformance for large-scale storage projects. Studying the subsurface in detail as the CO2 is
injected will improve understanding of processes and mechanisms around CO2 migration and
storage in the shallow subsurface. This improved understanding will in turn be used to
advance monitoring strategies for large-scale storage sites.

The GTB comprises seven monitoring wells plus surface sensors forming an array focused
around two injection wells. Depth of CO2 injection is ~ 210 and ~10 m. First CO2 injection tests
are planned for 2022. Deep CO2 injection is into the Helsby Sandstone Formation (part of the
Sherwood Sandstone Group which is the onshore equivalent of the Bunter Sandstone),
shallow CO2 injection is in the Arden Sandstone Formation within the Mercia Mudstone Group.

CO2 storage laboratory: A new study undertaken by the BGS, on behalf of the Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC), will scope out the need and potential for a CO2 storage
research testbed. The early scoping phase of the project is running 2021–2022.

PACT – Capture Technology Facility: The “Pilot-scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT)”
facilities were funded jointly by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and
the Department of Energy and Climate Change (now BEIS) with five academic partners:
Cranfield, Edinburgh, Imperial, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield, and are part of the UKCCSRC.

323
GB4.4 Involvement in EU-funded and other regional/international research
projects related to CCS
Some examples of large CCS international collaboration research projects with UK
involvement are given below:

European Space Agency Carbon Capture and Storage - Integrated Spaceborne Site Monitoring
(SPACEMON, 2011–2013): The objective of this study was to design an "Integrated
Spaceborne Site Monitoring" service for CCS projects.

FP7 Characterisation of European CO2 storage (SITECHAR, 2011–2013): This project aimed
to facilitate the implementation by improving site characterisation workflows, and by
establishing the feasibility of CO2 storage on representative potential CO2 complexes suitable
for development in the near term.

FP7 Understanding the Long-Term fate of geologically stored CO2 (ULTIMATECO2, 2011–
2015): This project focused on the long-term processes involved in the geological storage of
CO2 in order to increase confidence in the long-term efficiency and safety of CCS.

H2020 Strategies for Environmental Monitoring of Marine Carbon Capture and Storage
(STEMM-CCS, 2016–2020): This project improved understanding of fluid flow pathways in
the sub-seafloor and their implications for reservoir integrity; establishing environmental
baselines; improved methodologies for detecting, tracing and quantifying CO2 leakage in the
marine environment, and the development and testing of new technologies to enable cost-
effective monitoring of marine CCS operations.

H2020 Enabling Onshore Storage in Europe (ENOS, 2016–2020) aimed to enable onshore
storage of CO2 by developing, testing and demonstrating in the field, under “real-life
conditions”, key technologies specifically adapted to onshore storage and contributing to the
creation of a favourable environment across Europe through public engagement and
knowledge sharing with key stakeholders.

The European Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Laboratory Infrastructure (ECCSEL) was
established in June 2017 as a permanent pan-European distributed research infrastructure,
ERIC (European Research Infrastructure Consortium): There are UK CO2 capture and storage
facilities in ECCSEL. The H2020 ECCSEL and H2020 ECCSELERATE projects support research
for ECCSEL.

ACT Enabling a low-carbon economy via hydrogen and CCS (ELEGANCY, 2017–2020) aimed
at providing innovative, cutting edge solutions to key technical challenges for H2-CCS chains.
Three key R&D aspects delivered by the ELEGANCY programme: the decarbonisation of
heating and transport based on an existing fuel and infrastructure, a commercial model for
industrial CCS; the opportunity to broaden public awareness of CCS.

324
ACT Pressure control and conformance management for safe and efficient CO2 storage (Pre-
ACT, 2017–2020) assessed the main storage related challenges for accelerated deployment
of CCS - capacity, confidence and cost. The project developed, alongside major industry
partners, a quantitative conformance assessment system that could be adapted to
incorporate any incoming data stream that provided information on the operation of the
storage complex.

The H2020 Subsurface Evaluation of CCS and Unconventional Risks (SECURe, 2018–2021)
gathered scientific evidence relating to monitoring the environment and mitigating risk in
order to guide subsurface geoenergy development. The project produced a set of best
practice recommendations for establishing environmental baseline conditions for
unconventional hydrocarbon production and the geological storage of anthropogenic CO2.

ACT Reusing existing wells for CO2 storage operations (Rex-CO2, 2019–2022) is developing a
procedure and tools for evaluating the re-use potential of existing hydrocarbon wells for CO2
storage to help stakeholders make informed decisions on the potential of certain wells or
fields for CO2 storage.

ACT Assuring integrity of CO2 storage sites through ground surface monitoring (SENSE,
2019–2022) aims to develop reliable and cost-efficient monitoring based on ground
movement detection combined with geomechanical modelling, inversion, utilising new
technologies and optimising data processing. The goal of this project is to demonstrate how
ground surface movement can be used as an integral part of the monitoring program to
effectively verify safe storage of CO2 underground.

ACT Stress history and reservoir pressure for improved quantification of CO2 storage
containment risks (SHARP, 2021–2024) aims to reduce this uncertainty with the ambitious
goal of improving the accuracy of subsurface CO2 storage containment risk management to
a level acceptable to both commercial and regulatory interests.

GB5. National actors driving CCS forward and public engagement

GB5.1 Awareness of CCS technology
Through the H2020 ENOS project, local stakeholders were engaged through dialogue around
CO2 capture and storage. General awareness of CCS before the series of discussion sessions
was low.

325
GB5.2 National advocates for CCS
The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) is a Trade Association promoting the
commercial deployment of CCUS. It comprises specialist companies from academic,
engineering, energy, law, finance, manufacturing, power generation, transportation and other
sectors.

GB5.3 Public engagement

SCCS undertakes research projects to support public engagement and understanding of
CCS. BGS has open days for the public where CO2 storage is usually presented (e.g. see
Fig. GB).

Figure GB: BGS open day – CCS display with posters and the “fishtank” which is used to illustrate CO2
injection and storage.

326
www.co2geonet.com